How is NIMBYism in your city?

[ChargerCarl]

Originally Posted by Double L

So you purchase the product and the quality of the product changes. Don't you have a right to complain to the person who made the product?

The product isn't the neighborhood, it's the property. For most people when you purchase a home you only receive a deed to the actual house, not your neighbors.

Originally Posted by Double L

Homeowners buy in a neighborhood, then a developer comes and changes the neighborhood. When you bought the property, the quality of the neighborhood was an issue concerning your decision. You have a right to have a say in the quality of your neighborhood, you invested your money into that neighborhood. I would love to see somebody build something undesirable where you live and see how you feel.

Tough shit. It's an inherent risk when you buy property. If homeowners aren't willing to bear that risk then they should rent rather than have the government enforce their personal aesthetic preferences.

[Double L]

Yes, the neighborhood does count, it factors into the decision you made when you bought the property. Again, I would love to see this happen to you and then tell me what you think.

[ChargerCarl]

Originally Posted by Double L

Yes, the neighborhood does count, it factors into the decision you made when you bought the property. Again, I would love to see this happen to you and then tell me what you think.

So what? Lots of things go into peoples consumption/investment decisions. It's not the role of the government to guarantee your return on them, especially if it comes at the expense of others. I have no sympathy for NIMBY tears.

[RCDC]

Originally Posted by Double L

So you purchase the product and the quality of the product changes. Don't you have a right to complain to the person who made the product?

Homeowners buy in a neighborhood, then a developer comes and changes the neighborhood. When you bought the property, the quality of the neighborhood was an issue concerning your decision. You have a right to have a say in the quality of your neighborhood, you invested your money into that neighborhood. I would love to see somebody build something undesirable where you live and see how you feel.

Agree. This is what pisses me off about some of the "new urbanists"; some don't seem to care about what it was that made the neighborhoods appealing in the first place. I'm finding that "NIMBYism" isn't about stopping any and all development, it's about wanting quality, contextual development.

[ChargerCarl]

Originally Posted by RCDC

I'm flinding that "NIMBYism" isn't about stopping any and all development, it's about wanting quality, contextual development.

As a current Bay Area resident and former resident of LA I can tell you from personal experience that this is very, very wrong. In San Francisco we call them BANANAs now: Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anyone.

People have strong status quo biases, and incumbent homeowners also have a strong financial incentive to increase housing scarcity to extract economic rent by engaging in NIMBYism. All of coastal California is a testament to this.

[RCDC]

Originally Posted by ChargerCarl

As a current Bay Area resident and former resident of LA I can tell you from personal experience that this is very, very wrong. In San Francisco we call them BANANAs now: Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anyone.

People have strong status quo biases, and incumbent homeowners also have a strong financial incentive to increase housing scarcity to extract economic rent by engaging in NIMBYism. All of coastal California is a testament to this.

I should believe you because...?

[ChargerCarl]

Do what you want.

http://ceqaworkinggroup.com/new-comp...using-projects

[RCDC]

Originally Posted by ChargerCarl

Do what you want.

http://ceqaworkinggroup.com/new-comp...using-projects

Sum it up if you please.

[ChargerCarl]

No

[RCDC]

OK, no point in responding. Thanks for the whatever.

[mhays]

never mind

[Leo the Dog]

Originally Posted by ChargerCarl

As a current Bay Area resident and former resident of LA I can tell you from personal experience that this is very, very wrong. In San Francisco we call them BANANAs now: Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anyone.

People have strong status quo biases, and incumbent homeowners also have a strong financial incentive to increase housing scarcity to extract economic rent by engaging in NIMBYism. All of coastal California is a testament to this.

This is definitely true even in San Diego. It's nearly impossible to build anything in established areas and it is impossible to exceed 30 ft in the coastal zone.

Just one example: San Diego is building a Trolley extension (LRT) to UCSD and the residents along the corridor are fighting tooth and nail against zoning changes that could allow future TOD at or adjacent to the new Trolley stops. They would rather have a blighted corner with defunct gas stations and surface parking lots than new apts/condos built along the rail route. Property values continue to climb sharply as supply of existing and new units is limited.

[10023]

A lot of London building stock is protected, and should be. Otherwise it's actually quite friendly to developers from the looks of things. There are restrictions on tall buildings in certain areas and along certain view corridors, but one look at the scattered high density development all over Greater London will show that it's not that hard to build big buildings.

The problem here is building new affordable housing, although a lot of existing stock in central areas is owned by councils, which further drives up the price of market apartments. Labour wants to allow building on greenbelt land which is, in general, a bad idea. What's needed is higher density, affordable development on brownfield or otherwise underdeveloped (but not worth preserving) neighborhoods.

A great example of this is the Surrey Quays area between Southwark and Canary Wharf. Former docklands developed in the 1970s and 80s when the land wasn't so valuable, so it's very suburban (there's even a mall), but it's right in between London's two main financial districts and on the Jubilee line. The whole peninsula should be torn down and rebuilt from scratch, but there's local opposition even to redeveloping the shopping center!

It looks like this today: https://goo.gl/maps/QfKFrWMTa9t

[ChargerCarl]

In almost no cities do towers house the bulk of the population. If you're relying on high rises to make up almost all new housing construction then you're pretty much screwed out of affordability.

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by RCDC

This is a perfectly reasonable position.

I'll third that.

If you think that maximizing profit with no regard for urban design or context is good city building, then fine, I'll least give Carl credit for ideological consistency in keeping in line with his seemingly radical libertarianism. But - and I think I speak for most of us and most city dwellers here - building a good city is about more than maximizing private profit.

You have to balance good design & livability (which includes contextually appropriate uses & scales, architectural design, and how it relates to the public realm), how development will impact city services (which involves zoning uses & densities that best utilizing existing & planned infrastructure without overburdening it), while still ensuring profitability. It's a very reasonable position that developers should follow certain guidelines that benefit the greater good for being given the privilege of being able to build & reap the resultant profits. That's just typically how things work in a civil society.

[ChargerCarl]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

You have to balance good design & livability (which includes contextually appropriate uses & scales, architectural design, and how it relates to the public realm), how development will impact city services (which involves zoning uses & densities that best utilizing existing & planned infrastructure without overburdening it), while still ensuring profitability. It's a very reasonable position that developers should follow certain guidelines that benefit the greater good for being given the privilege of being able to build & reap the resultant profits. That's just typically how things work in a civil society.

Show me the market failure. Just about everything you just cited are things that would affect the demand function for a particular unit which would be reflected in the price. How is the government achieving a more efficient outcome here?

And we haven't even gotten into the political economy problems!

[ChargerCarl]

Almost all of the best urban space in the US was built before we clamped down on them with land use regulations. Strange how so many professed city lovers don't seem to be aware of that; desperately cherishing these places while they ignore the process of how they were built.

[10023]

Originally Posted by ChargerCarl

In almost no cities do towers house the bulk of the population. If you're relying on high rises to make up almost all new housing construction then you're pretty much screwed out of affordability.

Was this directed at me?

I'm not advocating for towers (although there can and should be some), but for replacing this suburban schlock-fest with higher density apartments:



What on earth is that doing in inner London? They can be six stories high with a more efficient road network, and density would increase dramatically.

And yet the local NIMBYs like their suburban island...

http://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/7690-2/

[ChargerCarl]

It was before your edit.

[ithakas]

Originally Posted by 10023

Former docklands developed in the 1970s and 80s when the land wasn't so valuable, so it's very suburban (there's even a mall), but it's right in between London's two main financial districts and on the Jubilee line. The whole peninsula should be torn down and rebuilt from scratch, but there's local opposition even to redeveloping the shopping center!

It looks like this today: https://goo.gl/maps/QfKFrWMTa9t

Wow, I had no idea London had its own Dearborn Park.