NIMBY'S or YIMBY's?

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by pdxtex

Those boomers are probably the ones who started the process. I dunno, we can round and round on pros and cons of gentrification but we know how those conversations go. I think in the end you need both yimbys and nimbys. You need to think outside of the box but you also need some self control.

Gentrification is an entirely separate conversation from development though. Lack of enough new development often makes gentrification happen quicker, as if enough units of housing were allowed in prime neighborhoods development would never spill into transitional ones.

[Investing In Chicago]

Originally Posted by daniel

NIMBY's are detrimental, YIMBY's are beneficial.

This doesn't make any sense. The thought process on this board is confusing at times. If someone opposes a new Highway ripping through their neighborhood are they a NIMBY? If someone opposes building a factory that will increase pollution, are they a NIMBY? If someone opposes a cannabis shop next door to a elementary school, are they a NIMBY? If someone opposes a State Penitentiary to be opened in a residential neighborhood, are they a NIMBY?

If they are a NIMBY are they being detrimental?

[TempleGuy1000]

Originally Posted by Investing In Chicago

This doesn't make any sense. The thought process on this board is confusing at times. If someone opposes a new Highway ripping through their neighborhood are they a NIMBY? If someone opposes building a factory that will increase pollution, are they a NIMBY? If someone opposes a cannabis shop next door to a elementary school, are they a NIMBY? If someone opposes a State Penitentiary to be opened in a residential neighborhood, are they a NIMBY?

If they are a NIMBY are they being detrimental?

These days, I hardly ever see the NIMBY/YIMBY framing beyond the housing discussion. Of course, you can 'NIMBY' different things like auto-infrastructure or a factory, but when people say 'I'm a YIMBY', usually it's in terms of housing and urban build, and not supporting highways and pollution. Maybe the OP should have been more explicit. Just my opinion.

[Investing In Chicago]

Originally Posted by TempleGuy1000

These days, I hardly ever see the NIMBY/YIMBY framing beyond the housing discussion. .

Really?! Pre covid, I used to go to quite a few of these local meetings in Chicago as i'm a significant property owner, and most of the time it was about residents shooting down removal of on street parking, requiring off street parking, loading areas on commercial streets, etc. Unless a building was proposed that was way out of context (like 25 stories in a SFH/3 flat neighborhood) those types of proposals were just rubber stamped.

[montréaliste]

Originally Posted by pdxtex

Those boomers are probably the ones who started the process. I dunno, we can round and round on pros and cons of gentrification but we know how those conversations go. I think in the end you need both yimbys and nimbys. You need to think outside of the box but you also need some self control.

Zactly. It’s a push and pull thing. Both are necessary.

[TempleGuy1000]

Originally Posted by Investing In Chicago

Really?! Pre covid, I used to go to quite a few of these local meetings in Chicago as i'm a significant property owner, and most of the time it was about residents shooting down removal of on street parking, requiring off street parking, loading areas on commercial streets, etc. Unless a building was proposed that was way out of context (like 25 stories in a SFH/3 flat neighborhood) those types of proposals were just rubber stamped.

I should have phrased what I said better. I didn't mean just housing, but more pro-urban policy. YIMBY's usually fall on the urbanist side of things: supporting more pedestrian design, more transportation options, housing density, etc. You framed your previous response with the 'NIMBY' being the pro-urbanist, which is true, and possible, but I think when people say "YIMBY's are beneficial" it basically means I support good urbanism. At least that's how I take it.