Now, a serious company wants me to do YIMBY New York for them, and add their marketing power. But I was wondering if YIMBY San Fransisco (or bay area) is not better?
Now, I don’t live in the US, but don’t you have more “nimby hurdles” in the bay area?
In the Stockholm game, you have to elect away the politicians, you have to close the central airport, you have to remove the “beach protection” (which disallows housing 100-300 meters near the ocean, which is a bit weird in a city built on islands) and finally you have to remove the king to get his ample land. And you have to fight arguments such as bats, fishes, “beauty council” and influential sunbathers.
In the US I guess it’s mostly about “zoning” and rich villa nimbies? Isn’t that more of a problem in the bay area? Or is New York more interesting? What game would you like to play? In any case, I’ll be here listening to all your arguments to find a game in it all
Are there any differences between, for example, Manhattan, Queens, Brooklyn etc?
In Stockholm, for example, there is no difference for parts of the municipality, but the local areas have their tiny politicians who somehow directs it informally.
If you could do X things to make New York go from NIMBY to YIMBY, what would they be?
In NYC the Council usually defers to the will of the local Councilmember in weighing whether to support a project or not.
Making NYC more YIMBY would involve ending Councilmanic deference and simplifying the rezoning process. It would also involve adopting the recent set of proposals by Mayor Eric Adams called City of Yes (look it up), or the even more radical proposals espoused by Brooklyn Borough President Antonio Reynoso.
Thanks! I guess the areas of the “local councilmembers” are too small to be playable, but thanks for the other suggestions; I’ll look them up. (In my game we have 10 areas, which is doable.)
I’m quite aware of the YIMBY discussion about Stockholm, but this is grey area for me, hence the stupid questions
