Peter Baugh tweeted this out on Monday. Essentially, he attended a community meeting for a new housing project in his neighborhood. He spoke in favor of the proposed development. And was then accused of being a developer shill. His comments were subsequently no longer allowed at this "public" meeting. I mean, how could anyone possibly be in favor of new urban housing? Surely he must be a developer "plant."

This is wrong, disappointing, and a whole host of other unsightly things. So today I thought I would share a recent City Beautiful video that asks: "Are NIMBYs selfish?" I have shared Dave Amos' videos before. He's an assistant professor of city planning at Cal Poly and a well known YouTuber. And I think this video does a great job explaining some of the tensions and trade-offs at play when it comes to development, particularly infill development.

But as Dave clearly explains in the video, he is not a neutral actor when it comes to this topic. His view is that, yes, NIMBYs are selfish.

Planner Sean Hertel shared this (embedded above) on Twitter over the weekend. It is a lawn sign from Toronto's Junction neighborhood that is calling for a stop to demolishing family houses for high rises.

From what I can tell, this law sign is trying to communicate a few key messages.

One, high-rises are monstrous beings that enjoy praying on innocent low-rise houses and squashing them with their feet, and sometimes their asymmetric hands.

Two, it is mostly impossible to conceive of a world in Toronto where families live in high-rises and don't live in grade-related housing with a backyard.

And three, there is little value in building more, rather than less, housing in order to help with affordability concerns. Perhaps the thinking is that it needs to be low-rise affordable housing, or nothing.

With all of this said, let's do a little thought exercise today on the blog.

Let's for a second assume that there aren't any high-rises proposed in the Junction; only European-scaled mid-rise buildings that sit on the area's main avenues and back onto low-rise single-family neighborhoods. Let's also assume that these buildings will be sculpted in complete deference to their rear neighbors so that things like shadows are minimized.

Let's assume that more housing is better than less housing.

Finally, let's assume that, get this, noble families may actually be able to live in mid-rise and high-rise buildings. And that there are already many successful examples of this taking place in the city, such as over here in CityPlace.

What key messages would this lawn sign be then communicating?

I just discovered a new alliance of non-partisan, non-profit resident and ratepayer groups in the Greater Toronto Area that have come together in opposition of what they see as "unregulated overdevelopment and the lack of sensible growth vision for the GTA." If you'd like to read through their public letter to the Premier of Ontario, Doug Ford, you can do that over here.

In it you will learn that the Toronto region is vying desperately for the title of the most densely populated place on earth by trying to compete with already established locales like the slums of Mumbai and Monk Kok in Hong Kong. One has to admire ambition.

But what is not clear to me is what exactly "sensible, balanced, affordable, and livable developments" should look like. Should we quash our low-rise "Neighbourhood" designations (the majority of our land area) and instead blanket the region with mid-rise buildings similar to Paris? This is one option and, by the way, Paris is far denser than Toronto (relevant reading here and here).

Or should we maintain our low-rise "Neighbourhoods" exactly as they are and simply reduce overall housing supply by limiting height and/or density at our transit stations? Is this the ask? I'm not sure. But this is a good question for city builders: What should sensible, balanced, affordable, and livable development look like? Is the 33-storey building that I live in sensible?