It sounds like you're suggesting building an even bigger tent around the big tent that houses the Yimby coalition (which I like and agree that there's a broader urbanist movement that extends past housing supply issues). I think the operative questions here, though, are (a) what institutions house the policy levers that need to be pulled and (b) what form of political organizing is best for wresting control of those institutions.
I think the answers here are (a) state/local governments and (b) a network of grassroots organizing. That's, admittedly, my bias coming from working with Yimby Action, but I think that applies to issues across urbanism generally.
While land use restrictions are largely a local problem which needs to be tackled locally, there is also a need for a national conversation, since highway and SFH are largely subsidized at the level of federal budgets.
There is an even bigger tent comprising the “abundance” movement, championed by the Niskanen Center and affiliated thinkers, which pairs urbanist goals with other supply constrained sectors like renewable energy and healthcare. I’m wondering how a national urbanist party would stack up against an abundance platform in terms of % policy support in urban, suburban, and rural areas.
Yes, the Abundance movement is popping up a lot in the responses here and where else I've posted this. I need spend a little more time thinking about how this idea might fit with the Abundance movement, but I think it's mostly aligned which is a good thing.
I think this is right - the set of interlocking issues also creates a bunch of different possible coalition partners who can get roped into supporting some chunk of the agenda that has a BIG range:
-local zoning up into
-state-wide land-use & construction financing and then up again to the
-federal politics of highway funding & the mortgage deduction
Whether a totally new party is feasible or not, you are spot on that urbanists need to get better at politics. A platform based on a high quality built enviornment and affordable housing would have wide appeal. Congestion pricing reveals the stunning fragility of our authority as planners. You can study something for years, devote millions of dollars in expertise and research to figuring something out, and in a flash it can be canceled because of a political calculation. There has got to be a better political infrastructure for supporting these types of ideas.
I think the lack of viability around third parties and how even the most well-intentioned political movements get ruined at the drop of a hat makes a PAC seem more appealing. Even with that, I think IDing the types of people embedded within roles that can help move these ideas forward is just as important, the civic tech arena has done this to a lesser extent and there's a whole raft of roles that simply didn't exist a decade ago around digital transformation that branch beyond traditional IT.
I think the problem here is how dogmatic you'd want to be about this and ensuring collaborative discipline across the country that would enable policymakers, civil servants and others to work towards success, beyond just waiting for the unicorn politicals to solve things at scale because it's slow, and shapeshifting work.
Very interesting perspective. I’m curious if you can expand on “American urbanism should be about raising the management of the built environment to an art form, but for now, it’s about bringing our built environment into the 21st century. And I believe that there are millions of people across our nation’s cities who wish there were candidates, from the local to the national level, whose policies enabled a 21st century built environment.”
I’m trying to envision what management of the built environment looks like as an art form….as someone who is studying historic preservation (and loves it) I critique how it’s taken a position of collecting and curating historic buildings and sites deemed significant. It feels an art form, that focuses more on aesthetic of the historic built environment over functionality and real benefit for people.
As an art form, how does the management of the built environment look? Especially 21st century built environs? If it can bridge divides and improve lives I’m all for it.
The idea of a PAC is compelling. A national party would be quite a big lift given our first-past-the-post system.
Another idea is a more “branded” faction within urban/suburban democrats. Win the dem primary on an explicit urbanist platform and in most cities that’s enough to get elected in the general.
But you’d need an expansive vision of urbanism. One that includes schools, policing, and all the other things that people vote on.
Basically, I'm in agreement that there is room for some kind of urbanist faction that is broader than YIMBYism. I think that it's more likely to emerge in the Democratic Party than as a standalone thing, and I think there's a lot of overlap with the Abundance Faction idea. Also, given the nonpartisan salience of the housing crisis, I think it should be clear that this urbanist faction embraces YIMBY as a policy plank but does not subsume YIMBYism as a movement. But no doubt there is much to learn from the YIMBY movement about how to effectively organize.
I think the lack of viability around third parties and how even the most well-intentioned political movements get ruined at the drop of a hat makes a PAC seem more appealing. Even with that, I think IDing the types of people embedded within roles that can help move these ideas forward is just as important, the civic tech arena has done this to a lesser extent and there's a whole raft of roles that simply didn't exist a decade ago around digital transformation that branch beyond traditional IT.
I think the problem here is how dogmatic you'd want to be about this and ensuring collaborative discipline across the country that would enable policymakers, civil servants and others to work towards success, beyond just waiting for the unicorn politicals to solve things at scale because it's slow, and shapeshifting work.
A coherent faction inside one or both of the parties is likely much more tractable. Or a fusion model, as the Forward Party follows.
That being said, I’m afraid calling it the “urbanist” party would probably doom it. Something like “effective government” or “public service” would have a better shot.
This could also easily be part of the general Abundance movement that has been forming recently.
Provocative idea Diana! A PAC is likely a good avenue to influence outcomes in favor of urban constituents. There’s a lot at stake for cities and not enough action at a federal level to improve our urban situations (transit, housing, infrastructure, etc).
I love the thinking here! That said, I guess I feel a bit torn.
I wonder about the extent to which the different political positions that fall under this umbrella really do fall in line with one another. I personally share your agenda here, but I have seen a pattern in many cities/elections where people are not in alignment on these principles when it comes to transportation vs. housing. Often there will be “leftists” who are good on transportation but not so good on housing (“Don't let evil capitalist developers build in our neighborhoods!”), and “moderates” who are good on housing but not so good on transportation. And of course both of these camps tend to come with various other views on police, schools, etc. Given the varying views that people hold on these issues and more, I think it can be tricky to try to cluster together a single set of views running through a bunch of issues. As Matt Yglesias talks about in this post https://www.slowboring.com/p/housing-reform-should-be-bipartisan, a key part of the YIMBY movement's success has been its single-issue focus, which allows people to disagree on other stuff.
It sounds like you're suggesting building an even bigger tent around the big tent that houses the Yimby coalition (which I like and agree that there's a broader urbanist movement that extends past housing supply issues). I think the operative questions here, though, are (a) what institutions house the policy levers that need to be pulled and (b) what form of political organizing is best for wresting control of those institutions.
I think the answers here are (a) state/local governments and (b) a network of grassroots organizing. That's, admittedly, my bias coming from working with Yimby Action, but I think that applies to issues across urbanism generally.
While land use restrictions are largely a local problem which needs to be tackled locally, there is also a need for a national conversation, since highway and SFH are largely subsidized at the level of federal budgets.
There is an even bigger tent comprising the “abundance” movement, championed by the Niskanen Center and affiliated thinkers, which pairs urbanist goals with other supply constrained sectors like renewable energy and healthcare. I’m wondering how a national urbanist party would stack up against an abundance platform in terms of % policy support in urban, suburban, and rural areas.
Yes, the Abundance movement is popping up a lot in the responses here and where else I've posted this. I need spend a little more time thinking about how this idea might fit with the Abundance movement, but I think it's mostly aligned which is a good thing.
I think this is right - the set of interlocking issues also creates a bunch of different possible coalition partners who can get roped into supporting some chunk of the agenda that has a BIG range:
-local zoning up into
-state-wide land-use & construction financing and then up again to the
-federal politics of highway funding & the mortgage deduction
Whether a totally new party is feasible or not, you are spot on that urbanists need to get better at politics. A platform based on a high quality built enviornment and affordable housing would have wide appeal. Congestion pricing reveals the stunning fragility of our authority as planners. You can study something for years, devote millions of dollars in expertise and research to figuring something out, and in a flash it can be canceled because of a political calculation. There has got to be a better political infrastructure for supporting these types of ideas.
I think the lack of viability around third parties and how even the most well-intentioned political movements get ruined at the drop of a hat makes a PAC seem more appealing. Even with that, I think IDing the types of people embedded within roles that can help move these ideas forward is just as important, the civic tech arena has done this to a lesser extent and there's a whole raft of roles that simply didn't exist a decade ago around digital transformation that branch beyond traditional IT.
I think the problem here is how dogmatic you'd want to be about this and ensuring collaborative discipline across the country that would enable policymakers, civil servants and others to work towards success, beyond just waiting for the unicorn politicals to solve things at scale because it's slow, and shapeshifting work.
Very interesting perspective. I’m curious if you can expand on “American urbanism should be about raising the management of the built environment to an art form, but for now, it’s about bringing our built environment into the 21st century. And I believe that there are millions of people across our nation’s cities who wish there were candidates, from the local to the national level, whose policies enabled a 21st century built environment.”
I’m trying to envision what management of the built environment looks like as an art form….as someone who is studying historic preservation (and loves it) I critique how it’s taken a position of collecting and curating historic buildings and sites deemed significant. It feels an art form, that focuses more on aesthetic of the historic built environment over functionality and real benefit for people.
As an art form, how does the management of the built environment look? Especially 21st century built environs? If it can bridge divides and improve lives I’m all for it.
Is there a risk that becoming a "urbanist" party, reduces our ability to work across the aisle?
The idea of a PAC is compelling. A national party would be quite a big lift given our first-past-the-post system.
Another idea is a more “branded” faction within urban/suburban democrats. Win the dem primary on an explicit urbanist platform and in most cities that’s enough to get elected in the general.
But you’d need an expansive vision of urbanism. One that includes schools, policing, and all the other things that people vote on.
So I had been working on an essay about the Niskanen Abundance Faction essay, so your essay gave me the motivation and some direction to how to finish that. Thanks! https://www.ryanpuzycki.com/p/building-the-abundant-city
Basically, I'm in agreement that there is room for some kind of urbanist faction that is broader than YIMBYism. I think that it's more likely to emerge in the Democratic Party than as a standalone thing, and I think there's a lot of overlap with the Abundance Faction idea. Also, given the nonpartisan salience of the housing crisis, I think it should be clear that this urbanist faction embraces YIMBY as a policy plank but does not subsume YIMBYism as a movement. But no doubt there is much to learn from the YIMBY movement about how to effectively organize.
I think the lack of viability around third parties and how even the most well-intentioned political movements get ruined at the drop of a hat makes a PAC seem more appealing. Even with that, I think IDing the types of people embedded within roles that can help move these ideas forward is just as important, the civic tech arena has done this to a lesser extent and there's a whole raft of roles that simply didn't exist a decade ago around digital transformation that branch beyond traditional IT.
I think the problem here is how dogmatic you'd want to be about this and ensuring collaborative discipline across the country that would enable policymakers, civil servants and others to work towards success, beyond just waiting for the unicorn politicals to solve things at scale because it's slow, and shapeshifting work.
A coherent faction inside one or both of the parties is likely much more tractable. Or a fusion model, as the Forward Party follows.
That being said, I’m afraid calling it the “urbanist” party would probably doom it. Something like “effective government” or “public service” would have a better shot.
This could also easily be part of the general Abundance movement that has been forming recently.
I agree that "urbanist" is not the right word even if it's the most explicit. Duly noted on the Abundance movement.
Provocative idea Diana! A PAC is likely a good avenue to influence outcomes in favor of urban constituents. There’s a lot at stake for cities and not enough action at a federal level to improve our urban situations (transit, housing, infrastructure, etc).
I love the thinking here! That said, I guess I feel a bit torn.
I wonder about the extent to which the different political positions that fall under this umbrella really do fall in line with one another. I personally share your agenda here, but I have seen a pattern in many cities/elections where people are not in alignment on these principles when it comes to transportation vs. housing. Often there will be “leftists” who are good on transportation but not so good on housing (“Don't let evil capitalist developers build in our neighborhoods!”), and “moderates” who are good on housing but not so good on transportation. And of course both of these camps tend to come with various other views on police, schools, etc. Given the varying views that people hold on these issues and more, I think it can be tricky to try to cluster together a single set of views running through a bunch of issues. As Matt Yglesias talks about in this post https://www.slowboring.com/p/housing-reform-should-be-bipartisan, a key part of the YIMBY movement's success has been its single-issue focus, which allows people to disagree on other stuff.
That said... I'm a big fan of 5th Square!