4 ms·

If SF had been a little less NIMBY, we'd have been covered in freeways a few decades back and it would be lovely. http://hoodline.com/2015/03/panhandle-freeway

If SF had been a little less NIMBY, we'd have been covered in freeways a few decades back and it would be lovely. http://hoodline.com/2015/03/panhandle-freeway-revolt http://hoodline.com/2015/03/panhandle-freeway-revolt The only reason BART exists is because of the NIMBYs: "Lost in the story of the Freeway Revolt is the role it played in helping BART get institutional support. After the 1959 Supervisorial defeat of freeway plans, BART advocates got surplus Bay Bridge tolls allocated to the proposed transbay tube. After the 1961 vote against the Western Freeway, Mayor George Christopher and the influential Bay Area Council both endorsed the proposed BART system." The Geary line would be something akin to Boston's Big Dig in complexity and scale.

raldi 10y ago
The freeway revolts had nothing to do with NIMBYism. NIMBYs say, "I agree that people need a place to live -- they just shouldn't live near me" or "I agree that we need prisons -- just not near me." The freeway protesters believed that freeways shouldn't cut through any municipality. Not just theirs -- nobody's. If you think something shouldn't exist at all, you're not a NIMBY.
- dionidium 10y ago
  This is why the term NIMBY doesn't really capture what's happening now. The modern NIMBYs oppose city-oriented development in cities. They, too, seem not to be saying "not near me," but, rather, "not anywhere." It's a conservative impulse against any change.
  - epistasis 10y ago
    IMHO, there's no more self-destructive tendencies than those that oppose cities being cities. More people want to live in cities than there is space in the cities. Given that high-density living is more environmentally friendly than low-density sprawl, it's particularly bad for those in cities to not allow more people to live there. But there's two things that everybody hates in city planning: sprawl and density.
    - ghaff 10y ago
      More people want to live in specific cities than there is space in those cities. There are plenty of cities with available real estate at reasonable prices.
      - epistasis 10y ago
        Taking SF as an example, there is a huge amount of space left. Paris has about 20k /sq. km, whereas San Francisco is about a third of that. And Paris' skyline is not dominated by highrises. There's more than enough room in SF proper, and there's absolutely tons of room down the peninsula. It just happens that current residents don't want their city to be more like a city, and don't want to improve the infrastructure so that more people move in.
        ghaff 10y ago
        That would seem to be their choice to make, rightly or wrongly. And, to my point, there's plenty of space for people around the US and even in cities--just not in some specific places today as they're currently built out and provisioned for infrastructure.
        epistasis 10y ago
        Well, it would be their choice to make if it was their property. But is it their choice to stop any development anywhere? That's the reality that many California cities live with: people who moved there a decade or more ago want their place to not change at all from the moment they moved in, not realizing that their own arrival also disturbed those who were there before. Because the problem isn't so much people not building stuff on their own property, it's a small number of highly motivated people that can stop any change at all, or interfere with others use of their land to the extent that they can not build, even within existing permitted use.
        ghaff 10y ago
        >But is it their choice to stop any development anywhere? Any development. Anywhere? No. But they can vote to influence the type of development allowed in the community where they're a voter. This isn't unlimited. Other property owners have rights based on the rules that were in place when they bought. >interfere with others use of their land to the extent that they can not build, even within existing permitted us Which in many cases should not be allowed.
  - gozur88 10y ago
    The problem is in SF people have so much invested in real estate anything that could potentially lower the value of their properties will be fought pretty rigorously. Anything that would block a view, or increase traffic, or create noise, or change the "special character" of the neighborhood.
- oppositelock 10y ago
  California has a specialization of the NIMBY, it's called the BANANA (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything)
pmiller2 10y ago
And then Marin and San Mateo counties effectively killed it as a reasonable method of getting around the Bay Area. BART is only really useful to get to or from SF to or from parts of the East Bay and Millbrae/SSF/Daly City. It could have been much more.
- Gibbon1 10y ago
  One of the other problems is the Feds gave up on Subways after WWII in preference to building freeways. I can't vouch for this but I've read one to two places that the Feds generally won't fund a transportation project unless it makes it faster to get from point A to point B.
pdx6 10y ago
Great article, surprised I missed that one from Hoodline. HANC is still around actively blocks housing projects in the Haight. For example, the Whole Foods on Stanyan and Haight was to be mixed use, but HANC (lead by Calvin Welsh) fought to block it. See: http://www.socketsite.com/archives/tag/690-stanyan http://www.socketsite.com/archives/tag/690-stanyan I agree that NIMBYism is a double edged sword, and this is where changing how people think about transportation and growth comes together, not changing who people are.

raldi 10y ago

The freeway revolts had nothing to do with NIMBYism. NIMBYs say, "I agree that people need a place to live -- they just shouldn't live near me" or "I agree that we need prisons -- just not near me." The freeway protesters believed that freeways shouldn't cut through any municipality. Not just theirs -- nobody's. If you think something shouldn't exist at all, you're not a NIMBY.

dionidium 10y ago
This is why the term NIMBY doesn't really capture what's happening now. The modern NIMBYs oppose city-oriented development in cities. They, too, seem not to be saying "not near me," but, rather, "not anywhere." It's a conservative impulse against any change.
- epistasis 10y ago
  IMHO, there's no more self-destructive tendencies than those that oppose cities being cities. More people want to live in cities than there is space in the cities. Given that high-density living is more environmentally friendly than low-density sprawl, it's particularly bad for those in cities to not allow more people to live there. But there's two things that everybody hates in city planning: sprawl and density.
  - ghaff 10y ago
    More people want to live in specific cities than there is space in those cities. There are plenty of cities with available real estate at reasonable prices.
    - epistasis 10y ago
      Taking SF as an example, there is a huge amount of space left. Paris has about 20k /sq. km, whereas San Francisco is about a third of that. And Paris' skyline is not dominated by highrises. There's more than enough room in SF proper, and there's absolutely tons of room down the peninsula. It just happens that current residents don't want their city to be more like a city, and don't want to improve the infrastructure so that more people move in.
      - ghaff 10y ago
        That would seem to be their choice to make, rightly or wrongly. And, to my point, there's plenty of space for people around the US and even in cities--just not in some specific places today as they're currently built out and provisioned for infrastructure.
        epistasis 10y ago
        Well, it would be their choice to make if it was their property. But is it their choice to stop any development anywhere? That's the reality that many California cities live with: people who moved there a decade or more ago want their place to not change at all from the moment they moved in, not realizing that their own arrival also disturbed those who were there before. Because the problem isn't so much people not building stuff on their own property, it's a small number of highly motivated people that can stop any change at all, or interfere with others use of their land to the extent that they can not build, even within existing permitted use.
        ghaff 10y ago
        >But is it their choice to stop any development anywhere? Any development. Anywhere? No. But they can vote to influence the type of development allowed in the community where they're a voter. This isn't unlimited. Other property owners have rights based on the rules that were in place when they bought. >interfere with others use of their land to the extent that they can not build, even within existing permitted us Which in many cases should not be allowed.
- gozur88 10y ago
  The problem is in SF people have so much invested in real estate anything that could potentially lower the value of their properties will be fought pretty rigorously. Anything that would block a view, or increase traffic, or create noise, or change the "special character" of the neighborhood.
oppositelock 10y ago
California has a specialization of the NIMBY, it's called the BANANA (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything)

pmiller2 10y ago

And then Marin and San Mateo counties effectively killed it as a reasonable method of getting around the Bay Area. BART is only really useful to get to or from SF to or from parts of the East Bay and Millbrae/SSF/Daly City. It could have been much more.

Gibbon1 10y ago
One of the other problems is the Feds gave up on Subways after WWII in preference to building freeways. I can't vouch for this but I've read one to two places that the Feds generally won't fund a transportation project unless it makes it faster to get from point A to point B.

pdx6 10y ago

Great article, surprised I missed that one from Hoodline. HANC is still around actively blocks housing projects in the Haight. For example, the Whole Foods on Stanyan and Haight was to be mixed use, but HANC (lead by Calvin Welsh) fought to block it. See: http://www.socketsite.com/archives/tag/690-stanyan http://www.socketsite.com/archives/tag/690-stanyan I agree that NIMBYism is a double edged sword, and this is where changing how people think about transportation and growth comes together, not changing who people are.