One of the defining features of the UK housing and planning debate in recent years has been the rise of the YIMBYs. A growing number of pro-housing groups and personalities have emerged, especially online, drawn from across the political spectrum and often from think tanks, policy circles and campaigning organisations.
Whether you like them or loathe them, the YIMBYs matter. They shape how politicians, advisers, civil servants and journalists think about what is going wrong with housing and what would put it right. Many are regularly invited to speak with Ministers and a great deal of time is spent considering – and frequently legislating for – their ideas, often ahead of those promoted by industry. They have been notably successful at making the case that the planning system works against growth. But having spent the better part of the last decade in and around YIMBY circles, I have also seen where their analysis can fall short. Of course, YIMBYs are not a single bloc, and not every group or individual fits the critique that follows.
Internationally, YIMBY movements have shown that organised pro-housing campaigns can achieve real results. In California, campaigners helped deliver landmark reforms that ended single family zoning and legalised Accessory Dwelling Units (backyard homes). In Minneapolis and Oregon, reformers supported the legalisation of duplexes and “missing middle” housing at scale. In New Zealand, bipartisan upzoning expanded development capacity in major cities, while in Melbourne an increasingly organised YIMBY movement helped achieve a planning overhaul that included housing targets, rezoning around transport hubs and faster approvals.
The UK has a more mixed picture. Here, YIMBYs have been more effective at shaping elite debate than at securing changes that materially increase housing delivery. Too often, the movement’s most prominent arguments are strong in theory but weak on the practical realities of planning, land and development. In some cases, that has made parts of the movement actively unhelpful, particularly when elegant policy ideas crowd out more grounded reforms shaped by real world experience. At a moment when there is broad political and public pressure to ‘do something’ about housing, that gap matters. If the energy and visibility of the YIMBY movement are to translate into more homes and infrastructure, its approach needs to broaden.
The first change needed is to look beyond planning reform as the sole answer to our failure to build enough homes. Planning is clearly a big part of the problem. The system is slow, costly and unpredictable. Further reform is clearly needed. But it is not the only constraint on development, nor always the binding one – particularly at the moment. Too many YIMBYs are curiously ignorant of the demand side of the equation. A ‘build it and they will come’ mindset prevails, with little attention paid to the market signals that give developers confidence to build out schemes or acquire land. Nor is enough attention paid to how schemes are financed, how land comes forward, or how new regulatory burdens have ballooned the cost of building homes. Planning reform matters, but so does the basic question of whether a scheme is commercially viable.
A more effective YIMBY movement would take those market realities more seriously. So much time in government is spent discussing reforms that sound good in theory but run into difficulty when confronted with the economics of development. If campaigners want to help unlock delivery, they should be as interested in who will buy, rent and finance new homes, and on what terms land will come forward, as they are in whether policy allows them to be built in principle. A movement focused only on the legal right to build, rather than the conditions under which building actually happens, will only get so far.
Second, YIMBY groups need a more mature relationship with the development industry. That does not mean becoming their uncritical cheerleaders. But it does mean engaging seriously with the companies that will build almost all new homes for the foreseeable future. Much of the YIMBY movement seems at best uninterested in how the development industry actually functions, and at worst openly suspicious of the firms and commercial models that will deliver most new homes. That matters because the more practical and operational constraints on development get downplayed.
There is a tendency in pro-housing circles to romanticise micro-scale, street-by-street intensification while disregarding the role of larger developers. The former might play a role in decades to come, but the reality is most new homes in England are built on larger sites by larger firms with complex delivery models. A serious pro-housing movement should want those systems to work better, not keep them at arm’s length.
Third, YIMBYs should organise more deliberately in support of actual schemes, not just abstract reform. Anti-development campaigners understand that planning is ultimately decided locally. They submit objections and attend council meetings whether they live nearby or not. When actual homes are on the line, pro-housing voices are all too often too quiet.
That needs to change. YIMBYs should submit letters of support, speak in favour of applications at planning committees and create visible networks that councillors know exist. They should be prepared to make the case for homes in the places where decisions are made, not just in national policy debates. In an era when organised objections can be mobilised more quickly than ever, supporters of development need to be more organised too.
Part of the problem is structural. Planning applications sit within a patchwork of local authority portals with inconsistent formats and clunky document systems. That does not make engagement impossible, but it does make it harder than it ought to be to identify important schemes and engage at the right moment. If pro-housing voices are to show up more consistently, either the system needs to become easier to navigate, or better tools need to emerge that track applications in real time and across boundaries.
Lastly, the movement needs to get better at connecting new homes to the public’s immediate concerns. The cost of living has been their top priority for some time and is likely to remain so given global events. Yet this has not translated into greater support for housebuilding. Many people simply do not associate more supply with downward pressure on housing costs. Changing that perception should be a central task for the YIMBY movement. The argument for new homes is all too often made in abstract and hifalutin terms, rather than in ways that resonate with how people actually think about the economy and their own lives.
Evidence from the United States offers a useful guide. Research has found that the public does not naturally apply supply-and-demand logic to housing in the way they might for other goods. Instead, people rely on a form of “folk economics”. Only a minority believe that increasing supply would help to reduce prices, while large majorities favour policies like rent controls or restrictions on development and investment. Crucially, these views are often weak and unstable. They shift depending on how the issue is framed, and are not usually rooted in deeply held ideological positions.
This presents an opportunity. Shallow rather than entrenched opposition to new homes can be shifted, but doing so requires evidence and thinking about how the case is made. Until that happens, YIMBYism risks remaining an argument that works well in policy circles, but struggles to win support where it matters most.
None of this is to argue against the YIMBY movement. It is an argument for it to become more useful. The UK needs a stronger pro-housing coalition, but it needs one that is less theoretical, more grounded in delivery and more honest about the economics of land, development and getting things built.
Jack is the Director for Housing and Infrastructure at Public First. He was previously a No 10 special adviser, advising two Prime Ministers on housing, planning and levelling up policy for over four years. Jack pushed pro-housing ‘YIMBY’ planning reforms at the top of government for a number of years. Before working as a special adviser, Jack was Head of Housing at the Policy Exchange think tank.
