Okay, I really don't want to make this -- using ChatGPT to write my blog posts for me -- a habit. But I was genuinely curious what would happen if I asked it to: "write a stereotypical NIMBY letter opposing a new housing development." Here's what it generated.
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed housing development in our neighborhood. While I understand the need for affordable housing in our city, I believe that this project would have a detrimental impact on our community.
First and foremost, the proposed development is simply too large for our area. The increase in population density would put a strain on our already overburdened infrastructure, leading to increased traffic congestion, noise pollution, and strain on our public services. Additionally, the construction of this project would result in significant environmental damage, destroying natural habitats and putting wildlife at risk.
Furthermore, the type of housing being proposed is simply not in keeping with the character of our neighborhood. This development would bring in a large number of low-income residents, which could lead to increased crime rates and other negative social effects. It would also drastically alter the aesthetic of our area, replacing the existing greenery and open spaces with a monolithic, high-density housing complex.
Okay, I really don't want to make this -- using ChatGPT to write my blog posts for me -- a habit. But I was genuinely curious what would happen if I asked it to: "write a stereotypical NIMBY letter opposing a new housing development." Here's what it generated.
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed housing development in our neighborhood. While I understand the need for affordable housing in our city, I believe that this project would have a detrimental impact on our community.
First and foremost, the proposed development is simply too large for our area. The increase in population density would put a strain on our already overburdened infrastructure, leading to increased traffic congestion, noise pollution, and strain on our public services. Additionally, the construction of this project would result in significant environmental damage, destroying natural habitats and putting wildlife at risk.
Furthermore, the type of housing being proposed is simply not in keeping with the character of our neighborhood. This development would bring in a large number of low-income residents, which could lead to increased crime rates and other negative social effects. It would also drastically alter the aesthetic of our area, replacing the existing greenery and open spaces with a monolithic, high-density housing complex.
Brandon Donnelly
Daily insights for city builders. Published since 2013 by Toronto-based real estate developer Brandon Donnelly.
On the exact same day last week, the Toronto Star published two articles about housing. The first one, this one here, is about how "Toronto has protected huge parts of the city from anything denser than detached or semi-detached houses" and how this has resulted in an "uneven city." The second article, this opinion piece, is about the "many repercussions to replacing little bungalows." And one of the implied repercussions is that 3-storey sun blockers that invade privacy might actually kill people. Hmm.
In effect, these are the two sides of this debate. If you zoom out and look at Toronto, you will largely see a contrasting and uneven city of tall buildings and low-rise housing. Instead of building like Paris, which is consistently mid-rise -- but also far denser on average than Toronto -- we have chosen peaks and large plains to constrain new housing. And if you zoom in across those plains, you'll find many areas without sidewalks, along with people, such as the author of the second article above, who believe that nothing more than a single storey is appropriate for human health.
All of this has persisted because it has been politically popular. But time continues to show us that it actually runs counter to our goals of building an inclusive and globally competitive city region. Thankfully, it feels like we are finally reaching a tipping point.
The University area is one of 53 community planning areas in the City of San Diego. And this one, as the name suggests, houses the University of California, San Diego (UCSD), which is at the northern end of the blue transit line.
The last time the University Community Plan was updated was in 1987, and so it's an old plan and it is currently being redone to better align with the City's current strategic plan -- which includes things like "creating homes for all of us" and "championing sustainability."
The final draft community plan won't be available until later this year, but there are two draft scenarios available for download. Here's what Scenario A looks like:
The "T" circles are transit stops on the Blue Line (which runs south to downtown and then to the Mexico border), the olive green areas are institutional (UCSD, hospital, etc.), and the purple areas are "urban villages" with densities that go as high as 218 dwelling units per acre (darkest purple). For the other areas, please refer to the legend.
Now let's put this residential density into some sort of context. One acre = 43,560 square feet. So we're talking about 218 homes on every 43,560 square feet of land. For context, our mid-rise Junction House project is 151 homes and our site area is approximately 22,000 square feet (about 0.5 acres). That puts us at roughly 302 homes per acre -- more than what is proposed here.
In total the revised plan could allow for somewhere between 35,000 to 56,000 new homes in the University City area. Not surprisingly, the community has reacted by organizing rallies, such as this one, here, called "Honks against housing":
(I used a screenshot because embedded tweets don’t seem to show up properly in my email newsletter.)
This is, again, not unexpected. And all of the typical things could be said about incumbent residents opposing new homes on top of an existing transit line, next to a major university. But what stands out to me about this protest is its format.
These residents are worried that high-rises will destroy their community. So presumably they are looking to get the word out to as many people as possible. And one of the ways they have decided to do that is stand on the side of a busy road and appeal to people in their cars.
Ironically, I think this actually reinforces the need for an updated Community Plan. Because it speaks to the car-oriented nature of this community and the need for better land use planning around its existing transit stations.
In my view, the line of thinking here should not be, "this is going to destroy our community. How will our roads ever accommodate 35,000 new homes?" It should be, "how do we better plan this community so that our next generation of residents have the luxury not to have to drive everywhere?"
If you'd like to offer constructive feedback on this plan, I'm told that you can email Nancy Graham at nhgraham@sandiego.gov.
Finally, I am deeply concerned about the impact this development would have on property values in the surrounding area. The influx of low-income residents could result in a decline in property values, making it difficult for current residents to sell their homes and move elsewhere.
In conclusion, I strongly urge you to reconsider this proposed housing development. While I recognize the need for affordable housing, I believe that this project is simply not the right fit for our neighborhood. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely, [Your Name]
I must say that I'm impressed. It is a solid 5-paragraph letter that follows a tried and true formula. First, the entire letter is sandwiched between thinly veiled statements around the importance of housing. Both the introduction and conclusion speak to "the need for affordable housing."
And then in the middle of the letter, it hits on the holy trinity of opposition arguments: (1) overburdened/inadequate infrastructure, (2) neighborhood character, and (3) property values. I'm not sure there's much to improve on here. These computers are good.
So if you happen to need one of these, you may want to try ChatGPT.
On the exact same day last week, the Toronto Star published two articles about housing. The first one, this one here, is about how "Toronto has protected huge parts of the city from anything denser than detached or semi-detached houses" and how this has resulted in an "uneven city." The second article, this opinion piece, is about the "many repercussions to replacing little bungalows." And one of the implied repercussions is that 3-storey sun blockers that invade privacy might actually kill people. Hmm.
In effect, these are the two sides of this debate. If you zoom out and look at Toronto, you will largely see a contrasting and uneven city of tall buildings and low-rise housing. Instead of building like Paris, which is consistently mid-rise -- but also far denser on average than Toronto -- we have chosen peaks and large plains to constrain new housing. And if you zoom in across those plains, you'll find many areas without sidewalks, along with people, such as the author of the second article above, who believe that nothing more than a single storey is appropriate for human health.
All of this has persisted because it has been politically popular. But time continues to show us that it actually runs counter to our goals of building an inclusive and globally competitive city region. Thankfully, it feels like we are finally reaching a tipping point.
The University area is one of 53 community planning areas in the City of San Diego. And this one, as the name suggests, houses the University of California, San Diego (UCSD), which is at the northern end of the blue transit line.
The last time the University Community Plan was updated was in 1987, and so it's an old plan and it is currently being redone to better align with the City's current strategic plan -- which includes things like "creating homes for all of us" and "championing sustainability."
The final draft community plan won't be available until later this year, but there are two draft scenarios available for download. Here's what Scenario A looks like:
The "T" circles are transit stops on the Blue Line (which runs south to downtown and then to the Mexico border), the olive green areas are institutional (UCSD, hospital, etc.), and the purple areas are "urban villages" with densities that go as high as 218 dwelling units per acre (darkest purple). For the other areas, please refer to the legend.
Now let's put this residential density into some sort of context. One acre = 43,560 square feet. So we're talking about 218 homes on every 43,560 square feet of land. For context, our mid-rise Junction House project is 151 homes and our site area is approximately 22,000 square feet (about 0.5 acres). That puts us at roughly 302 homes per acre -- more than what is proposed here.
In total the revised plan could allow for somewhere between 35,000 to 56,000 new homes in the University City area. Not surprisingly, the community has reacted by organizing rallies, such as this one, here, called "Honks against housing":
(I used a screenshot because embedded tweets don’t seem to show up properly in my email newsletter.)
This is, again, not unexpected. And all of the typical things could be said about incumbent residents opposing new homes on top of an existing transit line, next to a major university. But what stands out to me about this protest is its format.
These residents are worried that high-rises will destroy their community. So presumably they are looking to get the word out to as many people as possible. And one of the ways they have decided to do that is stand on the side of a busy road and appeal to people in their cars.
Ironically, I think this actually reinforces the need for an updated Community Plan. Because it speaks to the car-oriented nature of this community and the need for better land use planning around its existing transit stations.
In my view, the line of thinking here should not be, "this is going to destroy our community. How will our roads ever accommodate 35,000 new homes?" It should be, "how do we better plan this community so that our next generation of residents have the luxury not to have to drive everywhere?"
If you'd like to offer constructive feedback on this plan, I'm told that you can email Nancy Graham at nhgraham@sandiego.gov.
Finally, I am deeply concerned about the impact this development would have on property values in the surrounding area. The influx of low-income residents could result in a decline in property values, making it difficult for current residents to sell their homes and move elsewhere.
In conclusion, I strongly urge you to reconsider this proposed housing development. While I recognize the need for affordable housing, I believe that this project is simply not the right fit for our neighborhood. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely, [Your Name]
I must say that I'm impressed. It is a solid 5-paragraph letter that follows a tried and true formula. First, the entire letter is sandwiched between thinly veiled statements around the importance of housing. Both the introduction and conclusion speak to "the need for affordable housing."
And then in the middle of the letter, it hits on the holy trinity of opposition arguments: (1) overburdened/inadequate infrastructure, (2) neighborhood character, and (3) property values. I'm not sure there's much to improve on here. These computers are good.
So if you happen to need one of these, you may want to try ChatGPT.
