Why ugly buildings create NIMBYism
worksinprogress.news
Why ugly buildings create NIMBYism
1–10 of 77 posts
Re: Why ugly buildings create NIMBYism
#2I'm skeptical. People seem to complain most of all because 1) they view the function of a city as moving and storing automobiles and anything that might hypothetically get in the way of that is bad ("we should only build these homes if they come with a massive amount of parking and generate no traffic!") or 2) just plain aversion to change, which is more understandable.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't push for things like single stair reform that could lead to more fine-grained, incremental urbanism.
I've been to a number of housing hearings and listened to what people actually say on the public record, and "I'd support this if it were more broken up" is not a thing I've heard. On the other hand "this is a NICE neighborhood and we do not want apartments here" is pretty common.
Re: Why ugly buildings create NIMBYism
#3I'm skeptical. People seem to complain most of all because 1) they view the function of a city as moving and storing automobiles and anything that might hypothetically get in the way of that is bad ("we should only build these homes if they come with a massive amount of parking and generate no traffic!") or 2) just plain aversion to change, which is more understandable. That doesn't mean we shouldn't push for things…
They want to keep out the poors (read: blacks.)
American racism, same as it ever was.
Re: Why ugly buildings create NIMBYism
#4I'm skeptical. People seem to complain most of all because 1) they view the function of a city as moving and storing automobiles and anything that might hypothetically get in the way of that is bad ("we should only build these homes if they come with a massive amount of parking and generate no traffic!") or 2) just plain aversion to change, which is more understandable. That doesn't mean we shouldn't push for things…
They want to keep out the poors (read: blacks.) American racism, same as it ever was.
[dead]
Re: Why ugly buildings create NIMBYism
#5It is not complicated. People buy a property because they like to live in that location. If you are going to drastically change that environment, you destroy the very reason they liked it so much they made it the biggest purchase of their life.
Re: Why ugly buildings create NIMBYism
#6I'm skeptical. People seem to complain most of all because 1) they view the function of a city as moving and storing automobiles and anything that might hypothetically get in the way of that is bad ("we should only build these homes if they come with a massive amount of parking and generate no traffic!") or 2) just plain aversion to change, which is more understandable. That doesn't mean we shouldn't push for things…
> 1) they view the function of a city as moving and storing automobiles and anything that might hypothetically get in the way of that is bad ("we should only build these homes if they come with a massive amount of parking and generate no traffic!")
Imagine it's a thousand years ago and some cardinal is hearing a dispute between some guild representative and some local lord or something.
The parties will invariably appeal to religion because that's that the listener cares about. But they don't "really" care. They care about their dispute. And they care about religion insofar as it lets them convince, often actively misleading along the way, the audience into agreeing with their framing.
That's essentially what 1) is. People are screeching about traffic because the municipality invariable has rules that make they the municipality have to care about that.
People can, and do, do the same thing with other pretexts like safety and the environment, whatever the audience cares about.
Re: Why ugly buildings create NIMBYism
#7I'm skeptical. People seem to complain most of all because 1) they view the function of a city as moving and storing automobiles and anything that might hypothetically get in the way of that is bad ("we should only build these homes if they come with a massive amount of parking and generate no traffic!") or 2) just plain aversion to change, which is more understandable. That doesn't mean we shouldn't push for things…
They want to keep out the poors (read: blacks.) American racism, same as it ever was.
I think NIMBYism around the world is often "to keep out the poors", they don't have to be black. Slots in my theory that a lot of racism is just classism.
Re: Why ugly buildings create NIMBYism
#8I'm skeptical. People seem to complain most of all because 1) they view the function of a city as moving and storing automobiles and anything that might hypothetically get in the way of that is bad ("we should only build these homes if they come with a massive amount of parking and generate no traffic!") or 2) just plain aversion to change, which is more understandable. That doesn't mean we shouldn't push for things…
They want to keep out the poors (read: blacks.) American racism, same as it ever was.
> They want to keep out the poors
That's classism. Indirectly associated with racism in this country, sure. But naming the thing accurately communicates the full breadth of it's effect.
Re: Why ugly buildings create NIMBYism
#9I’ve sat through enough city public hearings to know what the author claims isn’t true.
People don’t care if the building is gorgeous; they will still oppose it simply because they hate new homes in their neighborhood. If making the building beautiful significantly helped getting through zoning reviews, developers would have figured this out long ago.
Aside: the reasons new buildings are bland is because no two people agree on what is ‘beautiful’; second, delays due to zoning and endless regulations already make it difficult for a project to pencil even before spending much money on the facade.
Re: Why ugly buildings create NIMBYism
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
They want to keep out the poors (read: blacks.) American racism, same as it ever was.
I think NIMBYism around the world is often "to keep out the poors", they don't have to be black. Slots in my theory that a lot of racism is just classism.
My understanding of racism in the US is that it is more like caste in India than like class in Britain, for example.
The big difference is that you are defined by your ancestry so there is little to no mobility.
This seems to be confirmed by the way Americans seem to regard someone's race as a fundamental and immutable characteristic, even while intellectually accepting race is just defined by social convention.