Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why ugly buildings create NIMBYism

worksinprogress.news

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 77 posts

Re: Why ugly buildings create NIMBYism

#61

Post by emj »

Lammy wrote: post #45
eigencoder wrote: post #37

A related article on NITBYism and the built environment, but from the perspective of modern finance and how financial instruments may increase the amount of ugly buildings. https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/you-probably-own...

Nothing turns me off wanting to hear somebody's opinion more than using the dumbass made-up word ‘stroad’. There is no stronger signal that the author has no actual original opinion on the subject and is just parroting what they've read online and internalized as The Opinion Good People Have. Luckily it was above the paywall fold.

How would you describe the us way to destroy everything other than car traffic? It is not a street anymore. Can you describe it in an identifiable way.

Re: Why ugly buildings create NIMBYism

#62

Post by Lammy »

emj wrote: post #61
Lammy wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing turns me off wanting to hear somebody's opinion more than using the dumbass made-up word ‘stroad’. There is no stronger signal that the author has no actual original opinion on the subject and is just parroting what they've read online and internalized as The Opinion Good People Have. Luckily it was above the paywall fold.

How would you describe the us way to destroy everything other than car traffic? It is not a street anymore. Can you describe it in an identifiable way.

I disagree with the premise. Anything that lets people exercise their freedom of movement is a good thing.

Re: Why ugly buildings create NIMBYism

#63

Post by davidw »

watwut wrote: post #60
FuriouslyAdrift wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was directly tied to the disruption of neighborhoods culture. That's the root of my supposition.

It was because the new people were not white. They were black. The culture was not a factor, no matter how respectability politcs exactly as white they acted, they were black and thus a threat.

That's what 'FuriouslyAdrift' is saying. Those are the people he/she does not want in the neighborhood.

Re: Why ugly buildings create NIMBYism

#64

Post by fragmede »

ndriscoll wrote: post #57
Lammy wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing turns me off wanting to hear somebody's opinion more than using the dumbass made-up word ‘stroad’. There is no stronger signal that the author has no actual original opinion on the subject and is just parroting what they've read online and internalized as The Opinion Good People Have. Luckily it was above the paywall fold.

The idea of paying to read someone's opinion piece is also approximately the most pretentious thing possible. Presumably they want to convince me to care about whatever they have to say and effect some change. The idea of the reader paying for their blog post is absurd.

Should writers not be paid for their work? Or should we have a society where only people who chose to get born to rich parents get to have an opinion?

Re: Why ugly buildings create NIMBYism

#65

Post by Panzerschrek »

felineflock wrote: post #51

Modern architecture is ugly, influenced by Brutalism. And it is common for developers to present at the city council some beautiful drawings of dwellings surrounded by trees, with couples walking together holding hands and children playing. But when the actual thing is built it ends up looking like industrial warehouses. And the people who complain about enshitification of diverse services are the same ones complaini…

> influenced by Brutalism

Actual brutalism is actually pretty. But what is today called modern architecture, is not brutalism, but a consequence of construction cost cuts.

Re: Why ugly buildings create NIMBYism

#66

Post by freetinker »

mixmastamyk wrote: post #59
nonameiguess wrote: post #29

There are few recurring discussions on Hacker News that frustrate me more than this. There is so much mean-spirited and disinterested in truth stereotyping of the kinds of people who become NIMBYs and why. Let's be clear right off the bat. I'm NOT a NIMBY. I live in a rapidly growing neighborhood adjacent to downtown Dallas. It's been continually under construction virtually everywhere for as long as I've lived here,…

Sounds like you have a problem with law enforcement in the area. Also a lawyer would come in handy. Class action with neighbors should be less onerous for each party.

I think you may have missed the point. Law enforcement isn’t some 100% effective panacea. And getting to the point of a class action = a lot endured. Which is OP’s point.

Re: Why ugly buildings create NIMBYism

#67

Post by ndriscoll »

fragmede wrote: post #64
ndriscoll wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea of paying to read someone's opinion piece is also approximately the most pretentious thing possible. Presumably they want to convince me to care about whatever they have to say and effect some change. The idea of the reader paying for their blog post is absurd.

Should writers not be paid for their work? Or should we have a society where only people who chose to get born to rich parents get to have an opinion?

Publishing your opinion is free. Anyone can do it. On the other hand, my prior is already going to be that their pet topic is not important to me, and if they're charging money to tell me about it, I can only conclude it's not important to them either.

Re: Why ugly buildings create NIMBYism

#68

Post by casey2 »

PeterStuer wrote: post #5

It 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.

...and legally there is zero basis for freezing markets based on someones' feelings.

Re: Why ugly buildings create NIMBYism

#69

Post by casey2 »

gipp wrote: post #36

A whole lot of people in the comments who clearly didn't read the article, given the great lengths the author went to to distinguish NIMBYism (which most of the comments are about) from "NITBYism," i.e. historic conservationism which the article is actually about. Most of the objections being raised here are also points made in the article. Of course all that's undermined by the choice to use NIMBY in the headline, w…

It's a meaningless distinction if the market doesn't give a hoot about history. Playing this word game is extremely cynical when the housing shortage and homelessness are such problems, especially in a country like the US that doesn't have much history.

If it's worth preserving, then it's worth paying for out of your own pocket. Leaving it to the government just lets biased people decide what's worth preserving instead of letting the market work. Claiming market failure requires strong evidence beyond "a thing I don't like".

Re: Why ugly buildings create NIMBYism

#70

Post by gipp »

casey2 wrote: post #69
gipp wrote: post #36

A whole lot of people in the comments who clearly didn't read the article, given the great lengths the author went to to distinguish NIMBYism (which most of the comments are about) from "NITBYism," i.e. historic conservationism which the article is actually about. Most of the objections being raised here are also points made in the article. Of course all that's undermined by the choice to use NIMBY in the headline, w…

It's a meaningless distinction if the market doesn't give a hoot about history. Playing this word game is extremely cynical when the housing shortage and homelessness are such problems, especially in a country like the US that doesn't have much history. If it's worth preserving, then it's worth paying for out of your own pocket. Leaving it to the government just lets biased people decide what's worth preserving inste…

Huh? You seem to think the author, or maybe I, have some strong stance in favor of the status quo on conservationism, which is not the case. The article is just about trying to understand why the movement has been so successful, and what would have to change to get past it.

It's not "word games" because they're two different movements, with two different sets of causes and therefore two different sets of needs to be addressed.

Post reply on HN