Progressives’ Glaring Development Hypocrisy

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

The problem may be that rich people can successfully lobby against speed cameras in their neighborhoods much more effectively, leaving an abundance in poor areas. I think we should have speed cameras on every street. There's a very easy way not to get a ticket... don't speed.

To hell with speed cameras in Chicago. We saw how corrupt of a situation it was years ago

[dave8721]

Miami-Dade County has proposal in the works that would upzone the entire county within a certain distance of a metrorail station or certain bus corridors. It would drastically increase allowable densities and height limits in some cases, and local municipal governments would be given no say in the zoning matters. Needless to say many of the low density cities (Pinecrest, Miami Springs) are up in arms. In Miami Springs effected area, the number of allowed units would increase from 294 to 6758. Those against are using the usual rallying cry of "what about our property values?". The whole point of building more housing is to lower property values. Thats the point.

on the proposal: https://www.thenextmiami.com/miami-d...ew-apartments/

Quote the from the bills sponsor:

Over the last 20 years we’ve watched our population and traffic congestion increase. We have watched as development happens in a non-coordinated, non—comprehensive way. We’ve watched as housing prices outpace wages. We have watched urban sprawl as a countywide default development strategy. The time for watching has passed, action is required. The time never seems right to do something that’s big and difficult, but necessary. This RTZ amendment is big and difficult and necessary to accommodating our growth, while stopping our continual decline into traffic congestion and gridlock. It is always easier to talk more and study more even when the path is clear, and the journey required. We have had millions of dollars in studies and decades worth of conversations, we know what we have to do. There will always be people that are vested in the world that we are and disfavor the world that we must become. This is true even when our situation is not sustainable or our tomorrow resilient. If we are to guarantee a high quality of life for generations of Miami Dade Residents to come, we must act.

[dchan]

What would help is more reliable, wide-spread, and faster mass transportation across the city, and even into the edge suburbs. At the moment, developers feel the need to chase $$$ mainly in Manhattan and other hot locations. But imagine what kind of developments would be available if the city were more connected and accessible.

Off the top of my list is a large connecting line (or a 2-3 lines) that would join the Bronx, Queens, Brooklyn, and maybe even Staten Island. It's frankly ridiculous that (for the most part) the only reliable way to go across the outer-boros is to take subway that first cut through Manhattan. Imagine how much more development would occur if people could work and shop in expanded CBDs spread out across the city.

Anyway, back to topic. Ultimately, this attitude comes down to one point: people are always conservative once they have settled into a place and neighborhood that they love and can call their own. Therefore, even so-called progressives become staunchly conservative when it comes to shaping the present and future visions of how their home should be. So it should come as no surprise that they would go to such lengths to protect their home, even if it apparently comes at the cost of their own supposed political values.

Also, it's typically the older and/or well-settled residents who are staunchly against neighborhood changes. Those who would encourage or fight for changes are the following:
- the younger generation, who have less buying power for the same real estate (who would then promptly become the conservative older generation once they get what they want and then protect it dearly - it's a repeating cycle)
- those who live in sh*tty neighborhoods, because who wants to protect whatever is making the neighborhood so sh*tty? But if and once those neighborhoods improve to the point of being desirable, the residents will become just as conservative about their homes.

Personally, I wonder how the Singaporean government leasing structure might work for NYC? It may be the one place in the US where it would make sense. It might also work in San Francisco too, but I think their real estate woes are more self-inflicted than due actual lack of supply (assuming there could be adequate amount of development if restrictions are removed).

[Doady]

I've never been to NYC, but somehow I am not going to be convinced that the people of that city are so against high density residential developments to the point that they are promoting sprawl and segregation and contributing to a housing shortage and making housing unaffordable. Of all the places in the USA to single out for such anti-height or anti-density attitudes, they choose Manhattan? I just find it comical.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by Doady

I've never been to NYC, but somehow I am not going to be convinced that the people of that city are so against high density residential developments to the point that they are promoting sprawl and segregation and contributing to a housing shortage and making housing unaffordable. Of all the places in the USA to single out for such anti-height or anti-density attitudes, they choose Manhattan? I just find it comical.

Nothing surprises me anymore.

I live in the South Loop and I have neighbors complaining that offices, retail, and apartments are going to be built in the 78 development south of downtown Chicago.

These people throw everything they can think of at the wall to see what sticks. The current argument? We should make it into a park! Take a look at the google link below. First, we have a couple of small parks that do the job. Second, this site literally abuts another park in Chinatown. Third, this neighborhood borders Grant Park, one of the largest and best parks in the city.

People have lost their minds.


https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8623...m1!1e3!5m1!1e2

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

To hell with speed cameras in Chicago. We saw how corrupt of a situation it was years ago

I don't care if the money all goes directly to Lori's bank account. There is no other traffic enforcement in the city and people speed like crazy.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Doady

I've never been to NYC, but somehow I am not going to be convinced that the people of that city are so against high density residential developments to the point that they are promoting sprawl and segregation and contributing to a housing shortage and making housing unaffordable. Of all the places in the USA to single out for such anti-height or anti-density attitudes, they choose Manhattan? I just find it comical.

Most people in the city don't really care what they build in SoHo.

[Doady]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

Nothing surprises me anymore.

I live in the South Loop and I have neighbors complaining that offices, retail, and apartments are going to be built in the 78 development south of downtown Chicago.

These people throw everything they can think of at the wall to see what sticks. The current argument? We should make it into a park! Take a look at the google link below. First, we have a couple of small parks that do the job. Second, this site literally abuts another park in Chinatown. Third, this neighborhood borders Grant Park, one of the largest and best parks in the city.

People have lost their minds.


https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8623...m1!1e3!5m1!1e2

I am not familiar with the city or that project but you are referring to that empty site along the river?

It is important to protect public access to a lakefront or riverfront, and looking at Google Maps, although there seems to be a continuous public lakefront in Chicago, the amount of public spaces along rivers seems limited. Rivers also each have their own floodplain, so there is also the problem of potential flooding. So whatever they build, there should be some parkland included in the project no matter what, both for public access and to mitigate flooding.

A location near so many heavy rail transit lines, it would be a huge waste to make it all parkland, but not to consider parkland would also be a wasted opportunity and also potentially dangerous.

I get that it is frustrating that some people even so near the centre of Chicago, beside so many heavy rail lines, can oppose such developments, but it's not the same as people in Naperville opposing such developments. Where are the high-rise apartment buildings in Downtown Naperville? The potential of Downtown Naperville seems far more unrealized than the potential of South Loop. How many of the high-rises in the Chicago area are already in the City of Chicago? 95%?

If residents of the city want to preserve some its remaining low-rise character and create new greenspace, I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing. I say this not only as an outsider to Chicagoland, but also as a suburbanite, living in a Conservative riding. To increase density, encourage public transit, build multi-family housing, give people more housing options and make housing more affordable, to ultimately connect people together - the central cities and the suburbs have equal and shared responsibility, and right now the greatest opportunities for intensification, where is more high density and transit and diversity of housing options are sorely needed the most, are in the suburbs, not the cities. Even as a suburbanite, when I see people start pointing their finger at the central cities and their residents, I think it is the wrong target.

[mrnyc]

so wealthy people are nimbys.

i did not know this.

shocking news!

it could have been worse, for example they would have been out on the streets with pitchforks and torches, or sent their staff out there to do that, if affordable middle class housing was proposed instead. sometimes they will accomodate the poors, but good lord if there is one thing wealthy ny’ers will absolutely not stand living in their midst its working people. which is pretty ironic considering the history of soho, but nevermind that you.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by Doady

I am not familiar with the city or that project but you are referring to that empty site along the river?

It is important to protect public access to a lakefront or riverfront, and looking at Google Maps, although there seems to be a continuous public lakefront in Chicago, the amount of public spaces along rivers seems limited. Rivers also each have their own floodplain, so there is also the problem of potential flooding. So whatever they build, there should be some parkland included in the project no matter what, both for public access and to mitigate flooding.

A location near so many heavy rail transit lines, it would be a huge waste to make it all parkland, but not to consider parkland would also be a wasted opportunity and also potentially dangerous.

I get that it is frustrating that some people even so near the centre of Chicago, beside so many heavy rail lines, can oppose such developments, but it's not the same as people in Naperville opposing such developments. Where are the high-rise apartment buildings in Downtown Naperville? The potential of Downtown Naperville seems far more unrealized than the potential of South Loop. How many of the high-rises in the Chicago area are already in the City of Chicago? 95%?

If residents of the city want to preserve some its remaining low-rise character and create new greenspace, I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing. I say this not only as an outsider to Chicagoland, but also as a suburbanite, living in a Conservative riding. To increase density, encourage public transit, build multi-family housing, give people more housing options and make housing more affordable, to ultimately connect people together - the central cities and the suburbs have equal and shared responsibility, and right now the greatest opportunities for intensification, where is more high density and transit and diversity of housing options are sorely needed the most, are in the suburbs, not the cities. Even as a suburbanite, when I see people start pointing their finger at the central cities and their residents, I think it is the wrong target.

That would be a decent idea if there were a proposal for a park. There isn't.

These people would rather there be a massive vacant lot in their neighborhood rather than more residents.

I think you should look at the density of the South Loop and then I think you'll realize how much potential this site has.

They don't want to preserve anything other than a vacant lot.


Naperville would never build anything close to South Loop density. And in any case how will those people get around? This current site could get a Red Line station, is next to the current Roosevelt Station (Red, Green, and Orange lines), the northern section is closeish to the commuter station, and there is the Chinatown Red line station to the south.

What does Naperville have? You build high density where it makes the most sense. Naperville doesn't make sense.


Also, I work in a small suburb (certainly smaller than Naperville), but I think I have the pulse of thoughts down decently well; the density proposed for the site in Chicago would NEVER see the light of day in most of Chicagoland.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by mrnyc

so wealthy people are nimbys.

i did not know this.

shocking news!

it could have been worse, for example they would have been out on the streets with pitchforks and torches, or sent their staff out there to do that, if affordable middle class housing was proposed instead. sometimes they will accomodate the poors, but good lord if there is one thing wealthy ny’ers will absolutely not stand living in their midst its working people. which is pretty ironic considering the history of soho, but nevermind that you.

Yup.

I've been tasked to research and then put together a package for my town regarding affordable housing. I so don't give a shit.

Whatever I propose, they will shot down. They will probably only listen (and probably still not implement) the smallest more palatable ideas that residents won't riot over. So what is the point? Whatever we tweak on the edges will do absolutely nothing. It's just for those in power to say "HEY we are doing things."

[Doady]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

That would be a decent idea if there were a proposal for a park. There isn't.

These people would rather there be a massive vacant lot in their neighborhood rather than more residents.

I think you should look at the density of the South Loop and then I think you'll realize how much potential this site has.

They don't want to preserve anything other than a vacant lot.

This is called 78 North? It looks like a nice project, with some parkland too. But there is low-rise neighbourhood across the street? And this project is high-rises, no buffer from low-rise to high-rise, so I can sort of understand if there are concerns. Typically, cities aim for more gradual change in height and density. 3 storey residential buildings and then 35 and 50 storey office towers right across the street is quite abrupt, so some strong reaction might not be surprising.

Originally Posted by jtown,man

Naperville would never build anything close to South Loop density. And in any case how will those people get around? This current site could get a Red Line station, is next to the current Roosevelt Station (Red, Green, and Orange lines), the northern section is closeish to the commuter station, and there is the Chinatown Red line station to the south.

What does Naperville have? You build high density where it makes the most sense. Naperville doesn't make sense.


Also, I work in a small suburb (certainly smaller than Naperville), but I think I have the pulse of thoughts down decently well; the density proposed for the site in Chicago would NEVER see the light of day in most of Chicagoland.

Of course, Naperville doesn't have anything, because it hasn't tried to build anything. This seems like a good-sized traditional pre-war downtown, but somehow there is hardly any multifamily housing, not even townhouses, let alone South Loop density. So little effort at even medium density in an old downtown like that is not only suburban, but maybe even anti-urban, a deliberate effort to sabotage Pace and Metra service and exclude low-income people. Based on cursory glance, I also see no evidence of any sort of TOD along those suburban arterials throughout the region. No wonder Pace has less than 1/10 of the ridership of CTA.

That's why I say, if there's anything hold our cities back, it's not the attitude of residents of neighbourhoods like South Loop. Urbanization and transit and connecting people and neighbourhoods together is regional effort, and if the suburbs were willing to cooperate even half-heartedly instead of deliberately putting up barriers, you might see 78's happening everywhere throughout the city of Chicago, and beyond.

[M II A II R II K]

Denser cities could be a climate boon – but nimbyism stands in the way

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...wl-yimby-nimby

……

- Climate scientists and urban planners increasingly suggest that one of the most impactful ways to slash greenhouse gas emissions is to make cities denser. This change, scientists have calculated, is even more impactful than installing solar panels on all new constructions or retrofitting old buildings with energy-saving technologies. — “A lot of cities are worried about affordable housing and gentrification so these issues have to be dealt with very carefully,” said Christopher Jones, a climate policy expert at the University of California, Berkeley. “Also, if you build more density in the urban core it could end up in more sprawl with growth, with people wanting larger, cheaper homes and then commute into these new vibrant centers. It’s a bit like pouring sand on to a map – it will keep spilling out.”

……

[mhays]

The Guardian authors are utterly clueless. Here's a taste:

"...at just 283 people per square mile, the average American city is more than 100 times less densely populated than metropolises such as Paris or Barcelona."

[galleyfox]

Originally Posted by Doady

I am not familiar with the city or that project but you are referring to that empty site along the river?

It is important to protect public access to a lakefront or riverfront, and looking at Google Maps, although there seems to be a continuous public lakefront in Chicago, the amount of public spaces along rivers seems limited. Rivers also each have their own floodplain, so there is also the problem of potential flooding. So whatever they build, there should be some parkland included in the project no matter what, both for public access and to mitigate flooding.

A location near so many heavy rail transit lines, it would be a huge waste to make it all parkland, but not to consider parkland would also be a wasted opportunity and also potentially dangerous.

I get that it is frustrating that some people even so near the centre of Chicago, beside so many heavy rail lines, can oppose such developments, but it's not the same as people in Naperville opposing such developments. Where are the high-rise apartment buildings in Downtown Naperville? The potential of Downtown Naperville seems far more unrealized than the potential of South Loop. How many of the high-rises in the Chicago area are already in the City of Chicago? 95%?

If residents of the city want to preserve some its remaining low-rise character and create new greenspace, I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing. I say this not only as an outsider to Chicagoland, but also as a suburbanite, living in a Conservative riding. To increase density, encourage public transit, build multi-family housing, give people more housing options and make housing more affordable, to ultimately connect people together - the central cities and the suburbs have equal and shared responsibility, and right now the greatest opportunities for intensification, where is more high density and transit and diversity of housing options are sorely needed the most, are in the suburbs, not the cities. Even as a suburbanite, when I see people start pointing their finger at the central cities and their residents, I think it is the wrong target.

What?! This sounds like California talk.

The city of Chicago doesn’t care at all what Naperville and the other suburbs do. In fact, Chicago as a whole would be happier with the suburbs never building anything again for the next two centuries, because they compete with the city for population.

Chicago’s population has fallen 24% since its peak, and Naperville ain’t contributing any property taxes to the budget. This is the first time in a century that Chicago is finally outpacing the suburbs mostly because of aggressive downtown development. It’s aggravating to hear NIMBY complaints because they would quite literally bankrupt the city.

There’s no debate about free space next to the river because a public riverwalk easement is already required by law for new developments. Historically the river was an open sewer and industrial area so older properties tried to block it off. Besides the riverpath, there’s little interest in new parks as most areas are already served well or too isolated to get much pedestrian traffic.

[Smuttynose1]

Originally Posted by Chef

The premise of this thread isn't even true. The two most forward thinking zoning reforms have come from the Oregon legislature and the Minneapolis city council, both of which are left leaning. The Minneapolis city council is far enough left that Ilhan Omar would be considered a moderate on it yet it is probably the most pro density, pro urbanist elected body in the US.

There is a portion of the progressive movement that reflects the impulses and prejudices of the sort of highly educated, high income liberals who disproportionately live in places like New York City and San Francisco. Call them the Warren liberals. They tend to be anti-development, and generally when elite media, centrists and conservatives want to bash the left they like to pretend that those people are the entire left, when in reality they are only a small slice of it. Part of the issue is that they tend to live in the same places where the chattering classes live. Part of the reason the east coast media writes stories like this is because the people they are demonizing tend to live in NY and Boston in large numbers. If they were based in Minneapolis it would be harder for them to write these articles.

I do agree there's certainly some hypocrisy in progressive circles for supporting affordable housing, but finding ways to oppose virtually every affordable housing project. But NIMBYism and anti-development-ism are pretty bipartisan. In conservative circles, you hear a lot about the need to "preserve rural character" and that most forms of regulation are oppressive, unless it's related to zoning and land uses, in which case it's a great example of 'preserving local control.'

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by Smuttynose1

I do agree there's certainly some hypocrisy in progressive circles for supporting affordable housing, but finding ways to oppose virtually every affordable housing project. But NIMBYism and anti-development-ism are pretty bipartisan. In conservative circles, you hear a lot about the need to "preserve rural character" and that most forms of regulation are oppressive, unless it's related to zoning and land uses, in which case it's a great example of 'preserving local control.'

Draconian land policy in suburban counties will encourage higher density construction in a MSA's core county.

Williamson County, TN, enacted a minimum lot size of 5 acres in 2020 in that county's unincorporated areas. http://www.williamsonherald.com/news...9bee08587.html

Along with the fact that hilly Cheatham County lacks direct highway access, a semi-circle of low-density surrounds Nashville's core county on the west and southwest, meaning more development will occur in the remaining counties than otherwise would have.

[Doady]

Originally Posted by galleyfox

What?! This sounds like California talk.

The city of Chicago doesn’t care at all what Naperville and the other suburbs do. In fact, Chicago as a whole would be happier with the suburbs never building anything again for the next two centuries, because they compete with the city for population.

Chicago’s population has fallen 24% since its peak, and Naperville ain’t contributing any property taxes to the budget. This is the first time in a century that Chicago is finally outpacing the suburbs mostly because of aggressive downtown development. It’s aggravating to hear NIMBY complaints because they would quite literally bankrupt the city.

I wasn't talking about promoting growth in the suburbs at the expense of the city, I was talking about concentrating people and jobs in the suburbs closer to each other and closer to bus and train lines, and therefore bring them closer to Chicago. It would bring Chicago residents closer to jobs in the suburbs as well, especially those who have to rely on transit.

Chicago might be outpacing the suburbs in population growth, but not in transit ridership growth. CTA ridership fell by 14% from 2011 to 2019, Pace fell by 12%. Again, regional effort.

You say Chicago should only think of itself, its own self-gain, but its residents should think of the greater good? Don't you see the contradiction? Isn't that the whole problem this thread is trying to highlight to begin with? If you are against NIMBYism, if you associate it with too much self-interest, then you should stop promoting self-interest and stop downplaying the importance of the broader community and broader region. Start emphasizing less the boundaries and more the connections, and that includes the connections of Chicago to its suburbs.

An increasingly fragmented and disconnected urban area, the increasing isolation of the central city, that is suburbanization, that is sprawl, by definition, and it hurts central cities like Chicago most of all. True urbanity means increasing connections, and so the downtown by definition should be the most connected place of all. So not only should Chicago care about what all those suburbs are doing, it should care even more than the suburbs themselves care.

[isaidso]

This particular issue aside, I've always found it odd how 'progressive' and 'liberal' have a negative connotation in the United States. The first one means to move forward/improve (progress) while the latter means open to new ideas/promoting individual rights (freedom/liberty). The word liberal comes from the word liberty, after all. By extension, the opposite of progressive is 'regressive' and the opposite of liberal is 'conformist/Communist'.