The affordability crisis has revived the seductive idea that if we build more housing, prices will fall. This has led many to conclude that the regulation of development has helped push housing prices out of reach by restricting construction. This clean, simple story has attracted strange bedfellows, from free-marketiers to developers to housing advocates, who have coalesced into a movement — YIMBY, or “Yes in My Backyard” — that is defined by its opposition to regulatory constraints on development in the name of affordability. The group’s overarching affordability goal and the intuitive simplicity of its arguments have given the YIMBY narrative a widespread appeal. In mainstream media and policy circles, an apparent consensus has formed around YIMBY talking points.  

But does the evidence support the group’s basic assumptions?

Our “Cracks in the YIMBY Consensus” series, co-sponsored by the City Club of New York,  brings together housing experts whose research challenges the YIMBY “consensus.” Drawing from their research and professional experience, they offer alternative explanations for the affordability crisis and strategies for tackling it.

Series Sessions

Part 1: Why can’t we upzone our way out of the affordability crisis?

‘[The YIMBY narrative] is a clean, simple story. And it has attracted strange bedfellows. But does the evidence support it? Our research says: not really.’

Part 2: Does regulation actually explain the housing crisis?

‘We think that [our findings are] actually deeply inconsistent with the standard view.’

Part 3: Reframing the debate: Housing as the foundation of community

‘[The housing debate] should not be reduced to a narrow argument over how many units can be produced, how quickly land can be assembled, or how efficiently private capital can be mobilized.’