Should YIMBYs Plan for Population Decline?

How YIMBYs Can Evolve for a Century of Shrinking Cities

America is in the midst of a severe housing shortage. We need to build roughly 4.7 million homes to stabilize the strained market. This basic reality justifies the YIMBY movement. Anyone interested in affordable housing, in vibrant neighborhoods, and in urbanism generally should join the cause.

But this does not mean that YIMBYism should be followed with religious fervor. The fact is, YIMBYism—at least the maximalist version of the movement—has an expiration date. That date is the year 2080, which is the year the US population is projected to begin a downward spiral.

Urban planners are aware of the impending population decline. According to Alexandros Washburn, the former Chief Urban Designer of New York City, “The biggest challenge for urban planning, looking into the 50-year future, is what are we going to do when the population starts to plateau and decline? And then, all the pressure on building more and new and better is not there, and we have to deal with what we have.”

For many areas of the country, the decline has already begun. Nearly half of US cities are seeing population decline and—despite the housing crisis—there are currently 15.1 million vacant homes across the country. Population decline means less tax revenue, abandoned buildings, crumbling infrastructure, and higher crime rates. These impacts cause more people to leave, further exacerbating existing problems.

In the present, American cities experience declining populations due to industries failing or moving overseas. In the future, city populations will decline for an even more terminal problem: demographics. There will be a disproportionate number of elderly residents who will need to be supported by an ever-shrinking population of younger, working-age residents.

The YIMBY slogan “build, baby, build” will quickly lose its luster in a world where the only housing being built are retirement homes.

The year 2080 may seem like a long way off. But consider that the average American house can last for 100 years with general maintenance. So, much of the housing built today will still be around in the year 2125, long after the population has slipped over the brink. Also, the year 2080 may be generous. Due to Trump’s immigration crackdown, the US population could start declining as early as 2031.

This doesn’t mean that the YIMBY movement should wrap it up early. Rather, it means that YIMBYs should factor population decline into their overall agenda—starting now. In fact, the YIMBY movement is well positioned to help shepherd America smoothly into the population-bust era.

In its most aggressive form, YIMBYism isn’t satisfied with increasing urban density around public transit. Maximalist YIMBYs want to totally eliminate zoning laws with the aim of increasing the housing supply everywhere—even in suburbs and exurbs that currently prohibit anything but single-family homes. As a YIMBY myself, I’m in favor of this view, as I see single-family zoning laws as bad in principle. But YIMBYs like myself need to acknowledge that this maximalist approach is destined to lead to a lot of abandoned houses or even empty cities in the future.

The better, more future-proof approach is for YIMBYs to focus their attention on the livability and sustainability of the urban core. This is what Japan has been doing—ever since its population peaked in 2008—with its compact city strategy. While Japanese suburbs and smaller cities are shrinking and experiencing housing value deflation, the larger cities, including Tokyo, are still growing. In this environment, the compact city plan focuses on building residential housing and services near public transit. This saves on infrastructure costs, increases walkability and urban vibrancy, and safeguards against the impacts of the population decline that are being felt in the suburban areas.

Europe offers similar insights for the YIMBY movement in America. According to the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, there are ways to ensure that new housing projects take demographic decline into consideration:

• Prevent oversupply of housing in a situation of population decline by discouraging local governments from trying to compete for population.

• Focus on quality at least as much as on quantity of housing.

• Stimulate local diversity of housing types and housing tenure (rental versus owner-occupied), and prevent the development of large areas of low-quality housing.

• Stimulate the supply of affordable and rental housing next to owner-occupied housing.

• Decrease the restrictions on moving, for example by decreasing transfer tax.

Not all of these suggestions apply directly to the YIMBY movement, but they’re worth keeping in mind. In particular, this guidance highlights the balancing act that comes into play between local vs. national housing concerns when the population begin shrinking.

If YIMBYs want to stick their heads in the sand about population decline—fair enough. They still have several decades to ignore the problem and chant “Build, baby, build!” from the rooftops of rapidly expanding metropolises. Also, they still have time to do something about population decline. This is the only other long-term action plan for the YIMBYs: Rather than accepting population decline as inevitable, they can join forces with the pronatalists, the open borders enthusiasts, or the longevity researchers.

Either way, YIMBYs have a significant role to play. Before it’s too late.