HOUSING | You Do Not Have to Like Apartments
Online commenters unfortunately echo real-world housing debates.
Image by Hans Eiskonen via Unsplash
In early December 2021, the blog Marginal Revolution linked to a study showing that NIMBY (“not in my backyard”) sentiment and hostility toward density are quite popular.* I was not surprised, since earlier in 2021 Pew released polling showing that, in the U.S., only a clear majority of liberal Democrats prefer walkable communities and small homes to car-dependent sprawl and big houses. Yet the blog commenters did surprise me by totally ignoring three important factors that are also absent from most debates about housing: The gravity of the affordability crisis, consumer demand for dense housing, and car dependency.
Without wading into the reasons why (which include status quo bias), I concede that many Americans prefer sprawl. However, the MR commenters, who are obnoxious and contrarian on a good day, broke heavily in favor of single-family zoning and, in turn, sprawl and density restrictions. It was bizarre to see ostensive free market proponents defend a status quo of mind-numbing municipal regulation as a valid “democratic outcome” or a kind of social contract. Their basic reasoning was that Americans have demonstrated a preference for spacious, quiet homes. Despite their arch sensibilities, they trampled is-ought distinctions to defend the suburban wasteland.
“I don’t like it” is not a valid reason to support regulating or banning something.
I found the same kind of hostility toward density on Boxing Day 2021 in a neoliberal Facebook group, a pretty similar online space that leans left politically. I had shared my own reframing of this alarmist post depicting a massive Hong Kong apartment complex:
Image courtesy of the author
“I don’t get the neoliberal obsession with forcing people into oppressive apartment blocks,” one fellow groused. Then there was a classic response I found pretty funny: “Thanks, I hate it.” Which brings me to my thesis: “I don’t like it” is not a valid reason to support regulating or banning something. Apartment buildings and other forms of dense housing should be allowed to exist regardless of personal preference.
The comment chatter also echoed typical public debates over housing by neglecting three critical points:
Expensive housing is a real problem worth solving: To my bafflement, hardly any status quo defenders acknowledge there is a housing affordability crisis, not to mention an underlying shortage. NIMBYs and their apologists almost never offer a solution to these realities. If anything, they might complain that the problem is unsolvable. Some housing advocates note parallels with Albert O. Hirschman’s book, The Rhetoric of Reaction: Perversity, Futility, Jeopardy.
Many people want the option of high-density housing: Barely mentioned is the counterfactual of letting the chips fall where they may without land use restrictions, beyond accounting for basic public health and safety. A few MR commenters mentioned Coasian bargaining, but the externalities they pointed to were mostly trivial. Dense housing can be built in a manner that prevents neighbors from disturbing each other. I live in a townhouse with soundproof shared walls. What about apartments? Can they be humane? A YIMBYs of Northern Virginia member shared her own high-rise living experience in our Facebook group:
Families can live quite pleasantly in small square foot spaces. In America most people think they need a lot of stuff and all sorts of rooms for different activities. We think we need yards and garages. But living without a bunch of stuff and living close to a lot of things is actually a really great life.
Car dependency is a prescriptive policy choice: Perhaps the most consequential omission from the discussion is auto-centric transportation infrastructure. Whether or not most Americans want to drive, they are forced to. Poor sidewalks and a default absence of protected cycling routes are not “the free market at work.” Most problems attributed to density are automotive: traffic congestion, air pollution, and noise pollution, not to mention about 40,000 Americans killed annually by cars. As urbanists know, the density required to make housing affordable precludes residents driving everywhere. Cars take up too much space.
Walkability should not be a luxury amenity, for the simple reason that human beings are meant to walk outside. Being able to do so safely and comfortably is a reasonable expectation. A large minority of Americans live in rural areas where driving is a true necessity, but even America’s small towns historically grew around a walkable core. We should return to that land use pattern and reclaim the social connections and community ties that come with it.
Dense housing lets enough people live in the same place to sustain a resilient, hyperlocal economy and vibrant shared spaces. People are entitled to choose the kind of home they want, based solely on their own preferences.
*Disclosure: Marginal Revolution cofounder Tyler Cowen awarded me an Emergent Ventures grant.
This piece was originally posted by Luca Gattoni-Celli on Medium.com on December 26, 2021.