I first learned about the Yimby movement, which started in the San Francisco Bay area in the United States, from an article in the Guardian.
But its bang on point.
The article starts with the tale of a lady raising objections to a development scheme because it would block the sunlight to her zucchini garden.
“You’re talking about zucchinis? Really? Because I’m struggling to pay rent,” retorted an indignant Victoria Fierce at that 13 June meeting. Fierce went on to argue that it was precisely the failure to build new housing that is causing rents to climb in San Francisco, to the point that she can barely afford to live anywhere in the Bay Area.
This is at the heart of what the Yimby movement is all about.
What is a Yimby?
A Yimby is the opposite of a nimby. Nimby stands for ‘Not In My Back Yard’. Yimby, on the other hand, stands for YES In My Back Yard.
Many people concerned about the growing housing problems – which are occurring all over the world not just in the UK – tend to focus on the high rents. “If only there was rent control”, many people say, “it would be so much better”.
However, it wouldn’t. As explained in this article on the San Fransisco housing debate:
Because the way we distribute housing currently is (mostly) via the price mechanism, the way most people experience their displacement is by being priced out. But distributing housing stock by some other method wouldn’t solve the displacement problem.
Suppose the total demand for housing in the [San Fransisco] Bay is 20 million people. Currently we have housing for about 7 million people. If we distributed the limited housing we have by lottery, 13 million people would experience displacement as losing the lottery. If we distributed it via political favoritism, people’s experience of displacement would be finding out their application for housing wasn’t granted.
Either way it doesn’t matter. If 20 million people want housing, and you only have housing for 7 million of them, then 13 million people are out of luck, no matter how you distribute it.
So Yimbys are focusing on the question of supply.
One big problem with any new development is locals opposing it because they are worried that the building will be ugly or shade their gardens or make traffic or parking worse. Yimbys say (as discussed in this article)
Of course, neighbors should have input. But what neighbors have done with their input is not make better projects, but to shut down projects altogether. I’ve had lots of conversations where I ask these people about where they think the people who would have lived in the building are going to go. They mostly say, “Who cares? What does that matter for anything?” For YIMBYs, it’s the number-one thing.
Supporting development
What Yimbys do is support ANY development – as whether the housing is posh or ‘affordable’ – it will still be housing.
However, the preference is for high-density housing as this will allow more people to live in a smaller area.
This will help to protect farming and also help with climate change as commuting creates carbon. What is needed is more dense housing near business districts.
Price is not the point
If you have 10 million people who want to live somewhere and there are only 7 million homes – this will create a problem. If on the other hand, there are 10 million homes, but only 7 million who want to live there then market forces will ensure that the prices drop.
But they are not going to drop when there is such massive demand.
What do Yimbys do?
Basically, support all housing development. At the moment the main people participating in planning appeals will be the Nimbys. They will be motivated as the development will affect their home.
But if they are the only people making representations, then their view will probably prevail.
So Yimbys make a point of putting the opposing view.
After all the housing we need is not going to be built all at once. It will be the culmination of lots of small developments. So the Yimbys support those small developments and see that they get built. One by one.
A report was published recently by the founder of the London Yimby group on the Adam Smith Institute website so the movement has clearly crossed the pond!
Action Section
There are various Yimby groups in the UK, in particular in the three worst affected cities –
There is a directory of Yimbys here.
If you live elsewhere and there is a housing problem you may want to consider setting up your own Yimby group. There is a guidance page here although there is not much on it yet. Probably reaching out to other Yimby groups for support and advice would be a better way forward.
Or just make sure that you support every housing development in your area and speak up for it. But it is best done through a Yimby group.
Next week I will be looking at jobs.
“If you have 10 million people who want to live somewhere and there are only 7 million homes – this will create a problem. If on the other hand, there are 10 million homes, but only 7 million who want to live there then market forces will ensure that the prices drop.”
oh god. this is mister men level economics. Also you are picking articles that agree with your bias aka confirmation bias. People like Ian mulheirn, toby lloyd are doing excellent work into the economics of housing.
https://medium.com/@ian.mulheirn/londons-housing-non-shortage-a059593432b5
I don’t have a bias. This article is telling people about the yimby movement.
If the whole housing crisis in London thing is wrong and a fantasy – great! But in that case why are people having such problems? Even our own government describes housing in this country as ‘broken’.
This series is just putting forward ideas – I don’t claim to be an expert.
However clever theories from experts telling us that actually there are quite enough houses and don’t be so silly, does not really help people struggling to find somewhere affordable to live.
I should perhaps also mention, in case you have just dropped onto this post on my site without knowing anything about it, that this is only the first in what will be a long series.
It is possible that you may like some of the other planned posts …
I am getting more convinced that we may do better by moving jobs to areas with unused homes (North East for example) then trying to build yet more homes for people working in London, along with all the commuting issues.
I am happy with more homes being built where I live, but, there is just not the space on the roads, or in the trains to cope without large changes to the location of jobs, or the transport system.
If only flats were built to a standard in the UK, that resulted in people wanting to live in them, and hence being able to live near to work…….
I will be looking at this next week.
The YIMBY movement sounds like a local solution to a local problem that thinks it has the solution to everyone’s problems. It doesn’t. Areas vary and different approaches are needed in different places.
I agree that it is probably best as a local solution – if indeed it is a solution. The three areas that have Yimby groups are the three areas in the country where we have the most problems.
Ie London, Oxford and Cambridge. Oxford has horrendous problems I know. It may be helpful there, or at any rate worth trying.
But as I said in the introduction to this series, there are many problems and many solutions. I can only deal with them one at a time in this series.
“But what neighbors have done with their input is not make better projects, but to shut down projects altogether. I’ve had lots of conversations where I ask these people about where they think the people who would have lived in the building are going to go. They mostly say, “Who cares? What does that matter for anything?” For YIMBYs, it’s the number-one thing.”
I’ve had many conversations about development and intensification I simply don’t believe that people I’ve come across who are against local projects mostly say, “who cares?What does that matter for anything?” That reads like a lazy attempt to shut down the arguments of anyone not on board with the ideological view that development is always the appropriate solution by characterising them as selfish, nasty and parochial. Uncaring. This is an unhelpful social media style argument.
“At the moment the main people participating in planning appeals will be the Nimbys. They will be motivated as the development will affect their home.
But if they are the only people making representations, then their view will probably prevail.
So Yimbys make a point of putting the opposing view.”
Well this isn’t really true. Bear in mind that the NPPF requires local planning authorities to identify a supply of development sites sufficient to meet five years’ worth of local housing need. Where they are unable to demonstrate a five-year supply of housing land, the NPPF states that their planning policies that are “relevant … to the supply of housing” should be considered to be out of date. The presumption in favour of sustainable development should then apply, meaning that proposed developments should be granted planning permission unless their adverse impacts “significantly and demonstrably” outweigh their benefits.
So, wherever the local plan is not already providing sufficient housing to meet needs (and it is surely those exact areas which we are talking about) there is already a presumption in favour of sustainable development – this is the “pro” view which the Yimbys claim is not being represented. In fact it is dominant and it is up to the neighbours to undermine the pro view.
Incidentally – could someone please explain how to add bold, italic and highlight quotes on this blog?! Thanks!
You use the html code < strong > for bold and < em > for italic. I’m not sure about highlight.
Supply and demand the basic idiology of economics. How refreshing to see it mentioned. I suspect politicians think it an inconvenient truth as it reflects badly on their management. They’ve been very busy convincing the general public that landlords are to blame for price rises in property both to buy and rent. Everyone loves a scapegoat…
But seriously, it’s great to see the subject being discussed with the blame being placed squarely where it belongs.
As Ian mentions, it’d also be great to see government policy focusing more on decentralisation which would also help ease some of the pressure on the housing supply in the south. There are plenty of homes going cheap up here in Manchester. It’s frustrating to see housing policy that is created to control the London property market applied in blanket fashion to the entire country.