3 ms·

>I think this is just human nature. Probably, but I suspect we can trace the triumph of NIMBYism to the baby-boom reaching the "get off my lawn" age. >I disag

>I think this is just human nature. Probably, but I suspect we can trace the triumph of NIMBYism to the baby-boom reaching the "get off my lawn" age. >I disagree. Simply look at Europe or historical districts in the US. Its definitely not implausible, and only destructive to new citizens who want to live there (that don't have an existing vested interest in the area). If the area being "preserved" was limited in some way, then sure. But the reality is that new housing is simply illegal in every positive population growth city in the country. You cannot live in a city as a young person without displacing someone else because we've legislated it that way, and that's insane.

ghaff 10y ago
>But the reality is that new housing is simply illegal in every positive population growth city in the country. Las Vegas? To name one. High population growth. A lot of building.
- cgdub 10y ago
  Seattle. To name another.
breischl 10y ago
>>I suspect we can trace the triumph of NIMBYism to the baby-boom reaching the "get off my lawn" age. Doubtful. The majority of people hate change, and that has probably always been true. A large population influx inevitably causes change, both because of the number of people and because they are always culturally different to some extent. A lot of this used to get wrapped up in nationalism/racism. See US history of prejudice against the Irish, Italians, Poles, etc etc etc. Heck, we even had legal immigration caps on Chinese people. The Boomers might just be the first to resist changes via zoning and regulation rather than more direct action.
niftich 10y ago
Your points have some merit, but this: > the reality is that new housing is simply illegal in every positive population growth city in the country is just not true. There's plenty of greenfield building going on in the metropolitan areas of Denver, Boise, Salt Lake City, Vegas, St. George, Phoenix, Kansas City, Minneapolis, Northern Virginia, Raleigh, Atlanta, and South Florida. These are areas that have all shown positive population growth.
- positr0n 10y ago
  Also the Dallas/Ft. Worth metroplex is growing like crazy and there are cranes everywhere from downtown Dallas out 20 miles north where even the suburbs are getting high rises along the highways.

ghaff 10y ago

>But the reality is that new housing is simply illegal in every positive population growth city in the country. Las Vegas? To name one. High population growth. A lot of building.

cgdub 10y ago
Seattle. To name another.

breischl 10y ago

>>I suspect we can trace the triumph of NIMBYism to the baby-boom reaching the "get off my lawn" age. Doubtful. The majority of people hate change, and that has probably always been true. A large population influx inevitably causes change, both because of the number of people and because they are always culturally different to some extent. A lot of this used to get wrapped up in nationalism/racism. See US history of prejudice against the Irish, Italians, Poles, etc etc etc. Heck, we even had legal immigration caps on Chinese people. The Boomers might just be the first to resist changes via zoning and regulation rather than more direct action.

niftich 10y ago

Your points have some merit, but this: > the reality is that new housing is simply illegal in every positive population growth city in the country is just not true. There's plenty of greenfield building going on in the metropolitan areas of Denver, Boise, Salt Lake City, Vegas, St. George, Phoenix, Kansas City, Minneapolis, Northern Virginia, Raleigh, Atlanta, and South Florida. These are areas that have all shown positive population growth.

positr0n 10y ago
Also the Dallas/Ft. Worth metroplex is growing like crazy and there are cranes everywhere from downtown Dallas out 20 miles north where even the suburbs are getting high rises along the highways.