I am a NIMBY. I live over 300 miles north of Cambridge, in the lee of the quiet rolling hills. In a small valley lies my little village, my bucolic paradise of heavenly earthly wonder. Yet, it has been blighted by a plague affecting settlements from Penzance to John o’Groats – the new-build housing scheme, which, like some sort of invasive plant, encroaches on communities. But my problem isn’t with new housing, it is with our inability to deal with the duality of the housing crisis. We are not only short of houses, but of decent housing in the right place.

While the YIMBY arguments are initially convincing, the idea of simply setting fire to planning permissions and allowing a stream of new housing to flood the market in the hope of reducing housing costs is objectionable. Enabling young and less economically advantaged individuals to access the property ladder is doubtless appealing. Yet, the housing crisis is not going to be solved by a bonfire of regulation, nor by theoretical debates about various forms of liberalism. This dilemma of poor planning we now appear to face from Labour’s housing policy comes from a new ideology of YIMBYism, which is property populism: light on detail and easy to follow. While I am not defending our current planning system, I cannot indulge such frivolous and ill-conceived arguments that would see poorer planning, more isolated communities and spiritless places.

“We are not only short of houses, but of decent housing in the right place”

Even more worryingly, the housing developments seen springing up around the country are not built to form new communities. Instead, they are single-family dwellings, designed to be car-centric, with each lacking any local amenities. This is again a ridiculous policy. Governments should mandate mixed zoning, allowing for primarily mid-rise buildings in areas of demand, and attempt to densify cities while improving walkability and public transportation. This would be far more cost-effective and environmentally friendly. YIMBYs who claim that this is possible are already halfway out the door. Fundamentally, to do something on this scale with the quality and desired impact it requires regulation, something absurdly antithetical to YIMBYism, which is less of a policy and more of a state of delirium.

This failure is evident in Cambridge. While the city centre remains relatively walkable, new developments such as those in Eddington or Northstowe are disconnected from the centre, requiring cars to access much of the city. While there is clearly a need for new housing in Cambridge for students and locals, this default mode of British city planning is failing. It struggles to create soulful and integrated communities. Cambridge isn’t the exception, but a continuation of poor policy that shows there is a desperate need to move on from depressing planning, which dilutes character. We need to build houses in the right areas, where people want to live and with easy access to jobs and opportunities. Concentrating people in cities and improving infrastructure will do more than just solve the housing crisis, but will also reduce congestion from commuting and improve public health, provided that these new and rejuvenated areas are planned with people in mind.

"It struggles to create soulful and integrated communities"

I object to the banality and constructed vapidity, or at least the lack of local sympathy, that is created with new-build housing. I am, of course, not advocating for the same level of artistry and human care that many of our older buildings received. This is impractical when building at the necessary vast scale. However, if there is a need to build in a small village like mine, the buildings should at least mimic or adapt local styles. To this, I expect a cacophony, decrying my disregard for the cost of new housing. The vast majority of new-build housing in the UK costs an enormous amount of money. Making it sympathetic to local architecture will do nothing to already inflated prices. Secondly, if you want to have communities that are nice to live in, ones which promote interaction, and create inviting spaces for families, then they need to have character and a sense of place which stands beyond a plain white box. Fundamentally, if we want housing that works, it needs to do more than just house us. Counterintuitively, if we want good housing, we need to build good communities that have a sense of place and allow people to connect on streets designed for people, not for cars. By its frivolous nature, YIMBYism is incompatible and fails to provide a solution to the duality of our crisis.

As prices rise and fall, young people are left off the housing ladder. All too often, our fix is to throw up shoddy new buildings, wherever we can. Yet the solution to this crisis is not to reach for the quick fix and do the easy thing. Rather, we should strive for a solution that fosters healthy communities, addresses housing needs, and facilitates connections among people. To solve the housing crisis, we need to do more than just build new houses. We need to build new communities.