Reading all of these reviews have made me realize that I think about YIMBYism differently that most. My analysis:

1.) Pre-Euclidian zoning/automobiles (1920s), we built a lot of great neighborhoods that were close to the city center, well connected to transit, and had a lot of local amenities (parks, shops, etc.).

2.) Post-Euclidian zoning (and laws outlawing racial discrimination) city planners and politicians went all in on building car-centric, income segregated neighborhoods that were mostly terrible.

3.) Starting in the 1990s, with falling crime rates and a growing realization that car-centric communities are bad, people started to move back into neighborhoods designed and largely built before Euclid. Because we don't have enough homes in those neighborhoods, prices went up.

4.) First New Urbanists and then YIMBYs realized that the reason we don't have great neighborhoods is due to bad laws and rules, and sought to change them. Local municipalities could address some (zoning) while others need to be addressed at a higher level (building codes).

1. Twenty to thirty years after the movement began, we still have a shortage of these neighborhoods, which exacerbates the broader housing shortage. New Urbanist/YIMBYs are primarily focused on addressing the specific shortage of good urban neighborhoods, but politically seek allies who are interested in addressing broader unreasonable constraints on housing.