The YIMBY vs NIMBY framing is broken, here's a better one

The housing debate has largely collapsed into YIMBY vs NIMBY — "build more" vs "protect character" — and I think this framing obscures more than it reveals.

What YIMBY gets right

Supply constraints genuinely drive up prices in desirable areas. The research on this is fairly robust, particularly the Asquith et al (2023) work on vacancy chains and the Finnish natural experiment on deregulation. New market-rate construction relieves pressure on lower-income stock through filtering, even if the direct effect is smaller than some advocates claim.

What YIMBY gets wrong

Supply alone won't solve affordability if demand is functionally unlimited — and in global cities like London, Sydney, or San Francisco, institutional investment, short-term lets, and international demand can absorb new supply faster than it gets built. Markets clear, but not necessarily for residents.

The better framing: for whom?

The question isn't "build or don't build" — it's what planning system produces housing for the people who need it most. That might require supply increases and demand-side interventions (vacancy taxes, short-term let regulation) and publicly financed social housing where the market simply won't serve low-income residents at any viable rent level.

The binary framing makes all three legs of that stool feel like they're in tension. They aren't, or at least don't have to be.