Another thought this article caused me to have: is anti-gentrification NIMBY-ism ever a "first order" thing?
How much gentrification happens only because NIMBYism in other areas pushes new residents into previously poorer areas that are less politically able to keep newcomers out?
YIMBYism-but-only-for-the-poor-neighborhoods does sound like a distinctly inequal policy, so I can understand people's concerns there. Upzone Beverly Hills!
Arguably gentrification requires a NIMBY-style regulation regime to begin with. Cities that build out new housing according to demand don't "gentrify", they just grow. Gentrification presupposes a restricted supply of pre-existing housing.
I don't think this is true. Imagine a low-rent neighborhood that's close to a desirable location (for offices, or nightlife, or parks, or whatever). As the city grows, people will prefer to live in a renovated version of that neighborhood to living in newly-planted housing farther away.
Low rent neighborhoods next to a desirable location don't exist, though. What happens with gentrification is that locations become desirable, and because of inability for them to grow people "spill out" into adjoining areas. If you could build housing right there (i.e. taller buildings, denser neighborhoods, subdivisions, etc...) the problem wouldn't have happened in the first place. But NIMBY rules prevent that to protect existing owners.
How much gentrification happens only because NIMBYism in other areas pushes new residents into previously poorer areas that are less politically able to keep newcomers out?
YIMBYism-but-only-for-the-poor-neighborhoods does sound like a distinctly inequal policy, so I can understand people's concerns there. Upzone Beverly Hills!