Houses in Bouldin Creek, a neighbourhood in Austin, Texas, are cavernous, but occupy only a small portion of their plots. Rules known as the “McMansion ordinance”, intended to preserve the area’s character, ensure there is plenty of space between them. Architects must squeeze the design of any new home into an imaginary tent rising five metres from the plot’s edge, then angling in at 45 degrees. The rules seek to prevent sprawling developments from replacing small houses. Instead, the cost of complying with them has ensured that only large, expensive homes are viable.
Things are now starting to change. Alongside Auckland in New Zealand, Austin has become a test case for housing deregulation. For YIMBYs, activists who say “yes in my backyard” to development, reforms in the cities are shining examples to be followed elsewhere. There are signs such campaigners are winning the debate in the anglosphere. Britain’s new Labour government has made “getting Britain building again” a central aim; a push for affordable housing is core to the appeal of Canada’s opposition Conservative party. As case studies for the effectiveness of YIMBY reforms, both Austin and Auckland show signs of success. Yet they also show that changes are slow to take effect and may, on their own, have a modest impact.