The traditional narrative when it comes to NIMBYs is that these are individuals acting out of self-interest. Quintessentially, these are people who own their home and do not want development "in their backyard" out of fear that it might negatively impact the value of their property and/or have a negative impact on their local community.

But in reality, anti-development sentiment is likely more nuanced than this. In a recent working paper called "The Symbolic Politics of Housing," researchers at UC, Berkeley and UC, Davis show that anti-development sentiment is not always just about self-interest; rather, it can be predicted by how people feel about certain "salient symbols."

This is based on something called "symbolic politics theory" and it works like this: We all have positive and negative associations with certain "symbols." Often these are developed early in life. And so how we might feel about a development or a particular land use policy, depends on the symbols attached to it and whether we like them.

Here's an example.

Consider two identical apartment developments happening in your neighborhood. The first is being developed by faceless "Wall Street investors" and the second is being developed by a nice local entrepreneur who also happens to be of the exact same ethno-cultural group as you.

If you don't like people on Wall Street and you don't want them profiting from the development, the research suggests that you are more likely to oppose the first development, even though it's the same as the second one, and maybe even if it runs counter, in some way, to your own self-interest. You just don't like the symbol attached to it.

This is also why people who live in cities tend to be more pro-development on average. It reinforces symbols that they already like; ones associated with cities, density, and urban living. This is fascinating, but it also complicates matters. Because it means that strong opinions are not just being formed based on measurable impacts. It's also a question of symbols and feelings.

A beautiful new 43-storey rental building was just approved in Toronto's Liberty Village neighborhood. More info about the project can be found, here. Not surprisingly, some people in the community were against it. Here is a recent article that blogTO published talking about people who live in high-rises not wanting a new high-rise next to them.

One argument that is being made is that the neighborhood is already full. It has reached its density limit. We also hear this about the City of Toronto as a whole. But we know this isn't true. Architect Naama Blonder recently did a study that found we could fit another 12 million people within our boundaries with more efficient land use policies.

This particular site in Liberty Village is also about 400 meters from a future subway stop on the Ontario Line. So it is exactly where we should be putting more density. The problem today is that the area is suffering from a massive infrastructure deficit. The road network is inadequate and the King streetcar hasn't been prioritized.

It's no wonder the area feels full. But the reality is that there are lots of examples of highly livable neighborhoods from around the world with much higher population densities. The difference is that they have the right infrastructure, the right public realms, and the right modal splits.

Liberty Village will get there as well and it's already underway. For a preview of the future, check out the City of Toronto's Public Realm Strategy for the area. It was published in April 2024 and it includes things like new streets, new mid-block connections, and new parks. It is what the area needs and it's exciting to see it happening.

I am sure that most people aren't going to feel bad for LVMH, but it is facing some opposition in trying to bring the first Cheval Blanc Hotel to North America. Last year, Beverly Hills City Council approved the hotel development on Rodeo Drive, but since then, enough signatures were collected that a special election is going to be held later this month for the ~22,000 residents who are registered to vote in Beverly Hills. And from the sounds of it, the results will decide the fate of the project.

As I understand it, there are two mains groups that are upset:

1. A union representing hotel workers

2. Local area residents

The official message from group #1 is that they want affordable housing. But there is speculation that they just want the hotel to be unionized. I don't don't, so let's move on to group #2. Why would residents be opposed to this project?

One way to think about this is that LVMH is trying to build a fancy new $2,000 per night hotel in one of the richest cities in the US, on one of its most luxurious streets. So, you would think that there would be a fit and that more than a few rich people would be excited about such a development. I guess this is true — and Council did vote in favor last year — but clearly there are other concerns:

...some people were unhappy a 109-room hotel, framed by Rodeo Drive, Little Santa Monica Boulevard and Beverly Drive, would rise nine stories on one side and tower over surrounding retail and commercial spaces sitting at three and four stories high. Four buildings would have to be razed, and the idea of more traffic coming to the area was unsettling.

It seems to be about scale:

...Cheval Blanc opponents want to keep that small town vibe. “The area is charming and beautiful right now, and, if and when they are able to put that project out there, it will not be. It is very nice to be around low-rise buildings. You can sit at a sidewalk café in Beverly Hills and look across the street and see the hills. It is a very good feeling,” said Darian Bojeaux, an attorney who has lived in the city for 35 years and signed the petitions launching a special election. “Let them build a code-compliant hotel that is three stories high. Let them build something nice that doesn’t ruin the city.”

Here's an aerial of said small town vibe for context (I've marked the number of proposed storeys):

What's interesting about this situation is that it seems to isolate the concerns. Because what is being proposed here is an obviously compatible use. It is a rich thing in an area for rich people. Residents don't seem to be saying that this is a problem. Instead, it is height that could potentially "ruin the city." (Ignore for a second that there's already an office building of similar height across the street.)

What this tells me is that if you're thinking about proposing nine storeys of Ferragamo and Balenciaga, that's probably not small town enough. Saint Laurent needs to be no more than three.