[ingsoc79]

Of course it's important to distinguish between the YIMBYs and the Yes In Your Backyard types, who typically masquerade as the former.

You'll find them on discussion boards enthusiastically supporting development and/or sanctioned homeless camps in other neighborhoods because they "have better transit" or "closer access to services" than their own neighborhood.

[epistasis]

As long as "local control" is enshrined in California law, and anybody anywhere can come and stop development in somebody else's yard, YIYBY is an important counter to the NIYBY that dominate these meetings.

It's important to remember that NIMBYs aren't actually protecting their back yard, they're restricting what others are doing in their fully-owned backyard. So if you're going to complain about YIYBYs, then the category of NIMBY doesn't really exist, it's just NIYBY.

> enthusiastically supporting development and/or sanctioned homeless camps

These things seem quite different from each other.

And zoning should be a city wide discussion. If a city doesn't zone for density near to heavy transit, the city is zoning irresponsibly and should no longer have local control, and the State should take over zoning.

[ingsoc79]

> These things seem quite different from each other.

Two things that are often considered "undesirable" by the people living near them.

That's why there's room for skepticism when self-described YIMBYs actively root for other neighborhoods to take on these and other "undesirable" projects. In addition to demonstrating their public display of enlightened urbanism, it also happens to be in their interest to keep these projects out of their own neighborhood.

[timr]

Yes, exactly. Too much of "the YIMBY movement" consists of relatively wealthy people telling poorer people that they should re-develop their neighborhoods for the good of everyone. We'll all have cheaper rents! (...by like $10 a month, on average...but your rent, Mr. Poor Person, will be 10x higher. Sorry. It's for the good of the people.)

It's sad, for example, to see so much discussion of the Mission in San Francisco (which is already quite dense, by any standard short of "midtown manhattan"), when the western 3/4ths of SF (much of which consists of wealthier people in suburban-style mansions) is routinely ignored. And though I believe that YIMBY people do want to raise height limits and density everywhere (good, fine), in practice, the debates usually center on re-development in poorer neighborhoods, since it's an easier political lift.

[woolvalley]

You should think of Barcelona, Paris, and Amsterdam. Beautiful places with most buildings at about 8 stories high with large bike ridership and good public transit:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barcelona#Population_density

Not manhattan.

Like look at this random spot in barcelona: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.3974472,2.1586211,3a,60y,125...

[eecc]

Well Barcelona has been developing under the Cerdà plan since mid 1850. That's I think the issue: won't the average American clamor against "cUmmUnism" one minute after he's told his grotesquely styled McMansion is not allowed?

[schoen]

Huh, that reminds me a lot of Avenida da Liberdade in Lisbon (roughly the same building height and streetcape, although the Barcelona buildings are prettier).

[gcampbell]

I am a YIMBY who lives in the western neighborhoods of SF and would love to see them upzoned. I always think it's silly that there are perfectly pleasant pre-zoning 5-8 story apartment buildings down the street from my place that would be illegal to build under current regulations.

[sampo]

> Mission in San Francisco (which is already quite dense, by any standard short of "midtown manhattan")

Not so dense by the standard of Brooklyn, either. Brooklyn is 1.5x denser than Mission.

And that is the average density for all of Brooklyn, Brooklyn being 40x larger than the Mission District.

[timr]

"Brooklyn is 1.5x denser than Mission"

Citation absolutely needed. Show me source of your numbers. Brooklyn runs the gamut from skyscrapers to single-family houses, but the average construction is 1-3 story apartment buildings, just like the mission.

In any case, even if you're right, it's not a counterargument: how does the western 3/4ths of SF compare to Brooklyn? Why should we be focusing on the Mission, and not, say, Sea Cliff?

Let's try to put a condo building to Jack Dorsey's mansion and see what happens.

[sampo]

> Show me source of your numbers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooklyn

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission_District,_San_Francisc...

> Why should we be focusing on the Mission, and not, say, Sea Cliff?

Why not both?

[timr]

You're comparing SF in 2008 to Brooklyn in 2017. Click the source link, and you'll see that current estimate for the Mission (30,408/mi^2) is much closer to that of Brooklyn. The difference is only ~20%.

http://www.city-data.com/neighborhood/Mission-District-San-F...

[traytonwhite]

Because the Mission has easy access to BART, Caltrain, highways, and is central-ish to the SFMTA whereas Sea Cliff is just sort of out there.

[timr]

Great. You've just excluded 75% of San Francisco, and made my argument.