Unraveling Urbanism: Housing, Advocacy, and the Battle for Better Cities

Land use planning has always faced scrutiny, but in recent years, the conversation has grown louder and more polarized. Social media and digital activism have brought more voices into the debate, leading to important discussions but also fueling misunderstandings about what planners do and the forces that shape our cities.

Like many in my field, I became a planner to help create better places. In fact, very few of us enter the planning profession to defend outdated zoning, reinforce sprawl, or entrench car dependency. My goal has always been to foster communities that are more sustainable, connected, and livable. Despite this, planners often find themselves in the crossfire between deeply entrenched interests and advocacy groups. Some accuse us of blocking development. Others blame us for the very housing shortages they want to solve. The reality is that planners do not set the rules. We work within a political system where elected officials make the final decisions.

Balancing neutrality with the desire to advocate for better places is not always easy. Anti development groups fight to keep things the same. Pro housing voices demand urgent reform. Both frustrations land on planners, even when the challenges we face are driven by forces far beyond our control.

The Rise of the YIMBY Movement

For decades, suburban expansion shaped American cities. Federal policies encouraged low density sprawl, while zoning laws blocked housing diversity. Redlining and white flight deepened racial and economic divides. By the late twentieth century, many communities fought density to protect exclusivity and home values. Zoning became a tool for restriction rather than growth.

While rooted in earlier advocacy, a counter movement took shape in the 2010s. The Yes in My Backyard movement, or YIMBYs, pushed back against restrictive zoning and car centric planning. They championed denser housing, transit oriented development, and walkable neighborhoods. With social media and grassroots organizing, YIMBYs challenged policies that had constrained housing supply for decades.

Their advocacy, while necessary, sometimes oversimplifies planning’s role. I have seen growing hostility from YIMBY voices toward planners, even in cities that are working toward the very changes they demand. Many seem to misunderstand that planners do not have free rein. We research, analyze, and recommend policy shifts, but local governments set the course. Planning is a long game, constrained by laws, budgets, and political will.

Planners and the Political Landscape

By some estimates, there are nearly 35,000 municipalities engaged in planning in the United States. The system is fragmented and deeply local. The idea that planners wield unchecked power ignores the reality of local governance. Still, I understand the frustration. Change is slow, and the stakes are high. Housing costs continue to rise. Infrastructure remains car dependent. Outdated zoning laws persist.

What is ironic is that while YIMBYs criticize planners, their activism strengthens the case for the very policies many planners support. Those of us working in local government cannot always be public advocates. We frame policy discussions, craft alternatives, and shape decisions, but we do not make the final call. Many planners welcome the push from YIMBYs because it gives elected officials cover to approve bolder policies.

Yet planners remain an easy scapegoat. At public meetings and online, we take heat from all sides. It comes with the job. Most of us gave up utopian visions early in our careers. Still, it can feel misplaced. Many of us root for reform from behind the scenes, even as we sit quietly behind the dais.

The Urbanist Identity Crisis

As the YIMBY movement has grown, the term urbanist has become a catch all for anyone interested in cities. It once referred to planners, architects, and designers working to improve urban form. Now it includes cycling advocates, transit enthusiasts, and social media influencers. Some of this is good. The movement needs broad support. But much of the online conversation lacks depth.

Urbanist debates often mirror those in popular psychology. Just as TikTok has given rise to self help gurus, urbanism has found its way into bite sized infographics and viral slogans. Five signs your city is failing. The real reason traffic is worse. Why parking minimums are killing your town. These posts can be helpful, but they rarely capture the complexity of policy change.

That said, planners have done little to control the narrative. The profession remains filled with aging bureaucrats who are slow to adapt to modern platforms. While some have broken through, like City Nerd and The Happy Urbanist, most planning discussions still happen in committee meetings, journal articles, and dry conference panels. Meanwhile, YIMBYs and self proclaimed urbanists are shaping public perception of what planning is, and often, what it is not.

The Cost of Sprawl and the Myth of Choice

For all the arguments about density, car dependency, and zoning reform, one fact remains clear. Sprawl is expensive. Low density development costs more to maintain. New infrastructure subsidizes old suburban systems, creating a financial cycle that many cities cannot sustain. Urbanists often describe this as a Ponzi scheme.

Yet even in places like Portland, where zoning allows for greater density, the market does not always respond as expected. Development follows economic trends, financing realities, and local politics. The idea that zoning changes alone will transform cities overnight ignores the deeper structural barriers at play.

Developers are still building housing with abundant parking, even next to our light rail system, despite Oregon’s policy eliminating parking minimums within a half-mile of transit. I am also seeing prime land used for low-rise, four-story buildings when zoning allows for far greater height. This often happens because federal Davis-Bacon prevailing wage requirements make taller buildings significantly more expensive for nonprofits that receive federal funds from sources such as the HOME and Low-Income Housing Tax Credit programs. As a former affordable housing professional and current advocate, I see these patterns all the time. Many YIMBYs push for density without fully understanding the financial and regulatory forces that shape what actually gets built. While I do want restrictive planning to get out of the way, the market is extremely complicated.

YIMBYs often argue that the higher costs of urban living are balanced by lower spending on cars, as if choosing a denser lifestyle is simply a matter of preference. In reality, many people have little choice at all. High housing costs push them to the edges of cities. Job locations force long commutes. School closures eliminate walkable options. Daycares end up wherever they can find space. Limited transit leaves few alternatives. Decades of car-centric development have made sprawl the default, not a conscious choice.

Even in cities like Portland, where density is encouraged, housing costs remain high, leading to gentrification and neighborhoods that few can afford. Zoning reform has made way for denser housing, yet the market has been slow to deliver it at the scale needed. More housing and transit options are essential, but too often, YIMBYs mistake necessity for preference and overlook the deeper economic forces at play. Expanding supply alone does not guarantee affordability when land values, wages, and market pressures remain unchanged.

Beyond the Hashtags

The rise of online urbanism has done more than elevate land use debates. It has created a new wave of advocates who challenge outdated policies and push for smarter development. But slogans and hashtags are not enough. Real change takes time. Political structures move slowly. The path to better cities requires both vision and patience.

Planners know this better than anyone. We work within a system designed to resist sudden change. That does not mean change is impossible. It means the process is messy, layered, and often frustrating.

The most effective urbanism is not about winning arguments online. It is about showing up to city meetings, engaging local officials, and working within the constraints that exist. It is about shifting policies one step at a time while recognizing that progress does not happen overnight.

There is no perfect city. No single reform will solve everything. But the work continues, and planners, whether seen or unseen, will keep moving it forward.