YIMBY and what actual residents want

There is quite a discussion going on at Marginal Revolution around urban densification, YIMBYism, and, well, . . . things.  The core issue is the nature and degree to which increasing urban residential density solves or creates problems.  To answer the question requires both a knowledge of citizen desires, the ebb and flow of citizen configurations over time (changing mix by age, by family structure, by owner versus renter, etc.), and an exquisite comprehension about the delicate interplay of multiple loosely coupled chaotic systems, each with non-linear constituent processes, each with constrained feedback mechanisms, and all of which are prone to evolve over time.  This is a meta-market of long term evolving needs and expectations and conditions with always evolving supply and demand curves constraining or enabling other supply and demand curves in relatively unpredictable ways.

From my perspective most doctrine-driven urban planning (such as YIMBYism) is an epic example of intellectual arrogance, usually manifested as bad central planning at the expense of residents and investors.

Consider the nature of the decision where we choose to live.  Most of us make the decision only a few times in our lives, especially when the decision is deliberative around long term residence.  We have three well known types of markets with which we are reasonably familiar and have good research (consumption goods, durable goods, and capital goods.)  But beyond these are more existential markets of decisions.  Where will we choose to live, whom to marry, how far to invest in education, what field of commercial endeavor, what family structure and commitment, which religious community, etc.  

In these existential markets, our decisions are often path dependent and rare or singular.  Each existential decision is both constraining of some future decisions and enabling of others.  They are very consequential in terms of psychological well-being, personal fulfillment, economic productivity, wealth accumulation, reputational enhancement, social network creation, etc.  

Because they are consequential and occur only once or rarely over a lifetime, there is a broad spectrum of risk considerations to take into account as well as considerations of implied or explicit contract (which may be legal contracts or social/cultural/religious norms contracts.)

Urban planning falls smack atop this intricate existential market of individual decision making.  Whatever is chosen to be changed in terms of regulatory conditions, different from those existing or those of longstanding, represent potentially 1) a taking by government, 2) a benefit created by government, or 3) a mish-mash where there are multiple takings and conferring of benefits such that the individual is unclear whether they are currently or in the long term better off ante ordinationem.  

And yet, also, urban planning is a necessary field of study.  Which would be vastly improved by a strong dose of humility and acknowledged uncertainty.

The original Marginal Revolution post and comment from Sure is here.  Sure's comment in turn draws some 200 comments in a further spiraling conversation.  Will Rinehart then emails to Tyler Cowen a short essay which becomes a further post with its own long conversation from commenters.  

There is much of interest in many of the comments across all three posts, both as contributions of new information as well as critiques of evidence, logic or reason.  A lot of the conversation seems predicated upon the instinctual need to get the right combination of citizen demands and that makes sense given the genealogy of the thread of conversations.

Commenter Sure believes that what urban residents overwhelmingly want is short commute times and low density.

In contrast emailer Rinehart acknowledges the importance of "short commute times and low density" but says that more importantly what people want is "good schools and a mix of local consumption goods."  Which attribute is desired more certainly drives the conversation to different conclusions.  

But I think this is an anemic representation of the complexity behind these multiple loosely coupled chaotic systems, with non-linear outcomes, and constrained feedback mechanisms, and which evolve over time.  For individuals and for the aggregate of the residential and investing population:

What are the valued goals (goals, ordinal ranking, trade-offs, evolution)?

What are the population changes (aging, net increases or decreases, changes in owner versus renter)?

What are the evolving exogenous conditions (regulations and market valuations)?

What are the implied and explicit contracts and risks?

I agree with Sure that commute times and low density spatial desires (single family homes for example) are important.  As are Rinehart's education and local consumption goods.  But I would argue that these four consumption attributes are a meager representation of people's considerations when choosing where to live and where they choose to rent or purchase.  Some of the following show up in the comments, others are simply those I have seen or experienced living in six cities in four countries (three cities in the US) over four decades. 

Education quality (public and private)

Policing (Personal safety)

Policing (Property security)

Property taxes

Judicial system (courts, prosecutors and District Attorneys)

Transportation (road quality and maintenance, parking, etc.)

Quality of housing stock (both physically and as an investment prospect)

Economic security (robust economy)

Economic growth (increasing opportunities)

Health system quality and accessibility

Sports amenities

Cultural amenities

Retail amenities

Parks 

Reliability and adequacy of government services

Public transportation (bus and rail)

Societal stability (both social and reflecting primacy of housing value in personal portfolio)

And it goes without saying that the weighting of those factors vary enormously not just between individuals but between classes of individuals, especially renters versus owners and singles/dincs versus nuclear and extended families.  

I would not presume to be confident that the above list is in the right order for the average person but I am guessing it might roughly be so.  For any individual, however, the ordinal ranking will be hugely dependent on the individual and their particular circumstances and goals.  

Most of these considerations will be primarily visceral in terms of which ones are considered important, how important (ordinal ranking), and relatively important (trade-off compromises such as smaller but more expensive home  in a good education district).  They do not easily lend themselves to accurate or precise measurement other than post facto revealed preference.  

Choice of where to live (and attendant impacts on income and investment) along with the risks associated with changing regulatory regimens are a classic example of Hayek's use of knowledge in society.  There is no static solution as most YIMBYs seem to behave.  The solution is a matter of market principles and dynamics which cannot be understood by the single mind nor can they easily be predicted over time.

And often, the planners fail to even acknowledging known constraints (for example Manchetti's Constant) which call into question just how much central plans can determine outcomes.  Blake's poem seems pertinent to encouraging humility by planners

Mock on, mock on, Voltaire, Rousseau:

Mock on, mock on: ‘tis all in vain!

You throw the sand against the wind,

And the wind blows it back again.

And every sand becomes a Gem,

Reflected in the beam divine;

Blown back they blind the mocking Eye,

But still in Israel’s paths they shine.

The Atoms of Democritus

And the Newton’s Particles of Light

Are sands upon the Red Sea shore,

Where Israel’s tents do shine so bright.

Those pursuing a YIMBY agenda are seeking to increase density by changing the rules governing the market and thus changing the expression of the needs and expectations of the market participants (the residents, especially those who own their property).  

This virtually always represents a taking from the current residents.  It may be a necessary taking.  It may be, eventually, net beneficial to a larger population of residents.  

Or it may not.  The question, to my mind, is not whether the change in policy is philosophically well grounded or even legal.  The question is whether we can have significant confidence that it will actually deliver the benefits we (the central planners) want to happen.  

Perhaps it will.  But there is plenty of reason, based on the history of urban planning blunders to treat the YIMBY fad with caution and like Chesterton with his fence, assess just how confident we are in our comprehension of the delicate interplay of multiple loosely coupled chaotic systems, each with non-linear constituent processes, each with constrained feedback mechanisms, and all of which being prone to evolve over time.  

My native instinct is that there is a contract in place (the existing regulatory rules and zoning traditions) and that there should be changes in that system only when there is high confidence in the outcome of those changes and with a high degree of explicit consent of those being affected by the proposed changes.  

For all the chatter about YIMBY, I rarely encounter residents who are the most highly invested in their communities (those with families and who own property and who are integral in their community as employers or taxpayer or who are volunteers and the like) who are also supporters of YIMBY.  Those individuals for whom their home is indeed their single biggest investment.  

YIMBY appears to me to be popular among academics, urban planners, property speculators and the very wealthy who have multiple roosting sites in different locations.