4 ms·

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

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.
      - dionidium 10y ago
        That would seem to be their choice to make, rightly or wrongly. My position on this is undoubtedly going to seem absurd to anyone hearing it for the first time, but it's that, no, in fact, San Francisco does not belong to the people who happen to live there already. The most good could be done for the most people by opening it up to -- unsurprisingly, almost tautologically -- more people.
- kps 10y ago
  > Given that high-density living is more environmentally friendly > than low-density sprawl […] Depends. Solar is close to the point where a typical suburban home can be energy-neutral; that can't happen when you have many more homes per roof. Silly Valley's housing and commuting nightmare is a consequence of tech companies' management decisions to cram everyone into the same physical space. It doesn't have to be that way; moving bits is far cheaper (in money and energy) than moving bodies.
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.

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.
    - dionidium 10y ago
      That would seem to be their choice to make, rightly or wrongly. My position on this is undoubtedly going to seem absurd to anyone hearing it for the first time, but it's that, no, in fact, San Francisco does not belong to the people who happen to live there already. The most good could be done for the most people by opening it up to -- unsurprisingly, almost tautologically -- more people.
kps 10y ago
> Given that high-density living is more environmentally friendly > than low-density sprawl […] Depends. Solar is close to the point where a typical suburban home can be energy-neutral; that can't happen when you have many more homes per roof. Silly Valley's housing and commuting nightmare is a consequence of tech companies' management decisions to cram everyone into the same physical space. It doesn't have to be that way; moving bits is far cheaper (in money and energy) than moving bodies.

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.