Tag: nimbyism

• Is better design the solution to NIMBYism?

  Alexis Self has an opinion piece in today’s Monocle Minute (email newsletter) that deals with development in London and NIMBYism. Here’s an excerpt:

  Affluent, socially liberal city dwellers can be the most extreme Nimbys. But perhaps their ire wouldn’t be so fierce if what was being built weren’t so aesthetically offensive. In the postwar era, London’s councils teemed with ambitious urban planners. The result: design classics such as Trellick Tower in Kensal Green, the Barbican Estate and Camden’s Alexandra Road Estate. While it’s true that these were labelled ugly at the time, they were undeniably the work of Europe’s best architects. Few, if any, of the city’s 21st-century edifices will enjoy a similar reappraisal.

  Alexis raises two interesting points: 1) Could better architecture and design actually help to quash NIMBY sentiment and 2) are we really not designing and building like we used to?

  I’ll start with number two.

  I am not that familiar with the “design classics” that Alexis mentions above, but it just so happens then when I was watching Never Too Small over the weekend I came across this studio apartment in the Barbican Estate.

  Designed by Chamberlin, Powell and Bon in the 1960s, the Barbican is a residential complex with somewhere around 2,000 apartments. It’s considered a prominent example of British brutalist architecture and so most of it is listed.

  While certainly noteworthy, it strikes me that it is likely one of those pieces of architecture that designers and architects love (I like it), but that the general public dislikes. In fact, architect Witold Rybczynski once argued that, “if people don’t hate it, it can’t be Brutalist.”

  Brutalism is having a bit of a renaissance. Kind of. But I don’t think we’re anywhere near universal appreciation. So I wonder if the general public really views these “design classics” as being some sort of golden era of British architecture and development.

  I also think, and I have argued this before on the blog, that buildings sometimes take time to settle in. From Montreal to Stockholm, our perceptions have been shown to change. The things we disliked before suddenly become desirable.

  Which means it can be hard to tell if we objectively dislike something (we’re not building like we used to) or if it’s simply not old enough for us to starting appreciating it. Beauty also happens to be a kind of subjective thing when it comes to buildings. Turns out we’re better at assessing whether people are good looking.

  This is probably a good time to come back to point number one: Could better architecture help quash NIMBYism?

  Not quite. I would argue that it certainly helps but it won’t completely quash it. I believe wholeheartedly in the power of great design. I want everything to be beautiful and considered. But the cynical developer in me knows that it will sadly only go so far.

  Béton brut (raw concrete) isn’t for everyone, I guess.

  2021.08.30

• How Japan increased its housing supply

  River Davis’ recent article in the Wall Street Journal about Tokyo’s generally flat home prices had me, again, wondering about demographics. I mean, aren’t their demographics working in reverse? They have an aging population, low immigration, and a low birthrate. But Tokyo, which represents about 11% of Japan’s total population, is still growing. And their home price index looks like this compared to San Francisco and New York:

  

  Davis’ argument, which of course has been made by others before, is that deregulation has allowed housing supply to actually keep up with demand. Land use policies were relaxed to allow taller and denser buildings to be built and some degree of decision making (I’m not sure how much) was moved to the central government in order to counteract the NIMBY problem that invariably attaches itself to local politics.

  The result is housing numbers that look and compare like this:

  In Tokyo last year, housing starts came in around 145,000, according to Japan’s land ministry. This figure is on par with the total number of new housing units authorized last year in New York, Los Angeles, Boston and Houston combined, based on the U.S. Census Bureau data. The same feat was achieved in 2017.

  If we are to normalize against New York, it looks like this:

  

  And the belief seems to be that it is working:

  “A reason why housing prices in Japan are not rising as fast as in New York, for example, is the large number of housing starts,” says Masahiro Kobayashi, a director general at the Japan Housing Finance Agency, a state-run entity which supports the housing market by purchasing home loans.

  One sentence that really stood out for me in the article is this one here: “Private consultants were given permission to issue building permits to speed up construction.” If any of you have tried to pull a building permit for a large project in Toronto, you’ll know that it can take a very long time (understatement). Maybe it is the same in your city. Should we be looking at this?

  Charts: WSJ

  2019.04.07

• Supply-side toolkit for greater housing affordability

  

  McKinsey Global Institute just published a “supply-side toolkit” for cities struggling with housing affordability. This seems to be every successful city.

  The article includes a long list of potential tools. Some of them you may agree with. And others you may disagree with. But I am sure that many of them will be familiar to you. One of the tools in the toolkit is accessory dwelling units.

  Of course, the overarching theme is that housing supply has not and is not keeping pace with housing demand:

  California, for instance, added 544,000 households but only 467,000 net housing units from 2009 to 2014. Its cumulative housing shortfall has expanded to two million units.

  Another one of the tools in the toolkit is “overcoming NIMBYism.” Here is an excerpt:

  People who come to a city to work need to be able to find an affordable place to live there. But the voices of existing homeowners who want to preserve the status quo often drown out those of newcomers, young adults, low-income service workers, and renters who need more housing. After a 2009 audit found that neighborhood councils were not representative of the city’s broader population, Seattle replaced these bodies with a central Community Involvement Commission that includes mayoral and council appointees chosen to represent a broader set of stakeholders.

  I am intrigued by Seattle’s move to create a central body and a new approach to public engagement – one that moves away from local district-councils. However, it appears that this Community Involvement Commission is still very much in its infancy.

  If any of you are familiar with the Seattle market, I would be curious to hear your thoughts on it in the comment section below. I am, however, going to spend some time reading up on it.

  For the full toolkit, click here.

  Photo by Sarah Brink on Unsplash

  2017.10.16

• Solutions to NIMBYism

  Earlier today Richard Florida published a piece in CityLab called: Anatomy of a NIMBY. The article cites a recent paper by Paavo Monkkonen (of UCLA) that focuses on the relationship between NIMBYism and housing affordability – a much talked about subject these days.

  More specifically, the paper identifies “four different strains of NIMBYism” and then offers up some possible solutions, which include things like a more inclusive process and better data. I’ve publicly supported these kinds of approaches on this blog many times before.

  But in addition to the above, I wanted to point out two other ideas from the paper and Florida’s article.

  The first is about shifting land use decisions up to the regional level, and maybe even the state level. This one is particularly timely given that there’s a lot of discussion in Toronto right now about shifting land use decisions in the exact opposite direction – from province (OMB) to city.

  The second is a suggestion from Yale professor David Schleicher that he refers to as “tax increment local transfers.” Essentially, the idea is to somehow allow current residents to participate in the future tax revenues generated from new development in their neighborhood.

  There’s lots of interesting reading buried in the above links.

  2017.02.23

• Why pessimism sounds so smart

  Tom Gardner and Morgan Housel (The Motley Fool) recently published a LinkedIn article called, Why Does Pessimism Sound So Smart? (Especially When Things Are So Good.)

  Here is the gist of it:

  If you say the world has been getting better you may get away with being called naïve and insensitive. If you say the world is going to go on getting better, you are considered embarrassingly mad. If, on the other hand, you say catastrophe is imminent, you may expect a McArthur genius award or even the Nobel Peace Prize.

  Part of the reason for this is that we, as humans, respond more strongly to losses:

  There’s clearly more at stake with pessimism. Daniel Kahneman won the Nobel Prize for showing that people respond more strongly to loss than gain. It’s an evolutionary shield: “Organisms that treat threats as more urgent than opportunities have a better chance to survive and reproduce,” Kahneman once wrote.

  The behavioural economic theory being referred to above is called Prospect Theory. I wrote about this back in the fall of 2013 and made the argument that Prospect Theory might explain why NIMBYISM is so common in city building. 

  Change to our communities is perceived as risky. And in the face of these uncertain situations, we tend to place more emphasis on the potential losses (traffic, congestion, shadowing, and so on) rather than the potential gains (increased vibrancy, improved streetscape, creation of more housing, and so on). It’s human nature.

  Having said all this, I show up here every day and try to make this blog a positive place on the internet. Sure, I make suggestions about things I think we should do, but I generally focus on them as opportunities. Hopefully that comes through, because I’m a big fan of optimism.

  2016.03.28

• Who should zone cities?

  

  The Old Urbanist has just published an informative post called “Where Zoning Went Wrong.” In it, he talks about some of the defining characterstics of American city planning and suggests that the delegation of planning authority from states to local municipalities is what has caused many of the challenges that city builders now face.

  But before we get into that discussion, let’s outline the characeristics. By way of Edward Bassett’s handbook on zoning (1922), the Old Urbanist outlines 9 characeristics of American planning. They are:

  1. Approval of the exclusion of commercial activity from residential zones
  2. Failure to disapprove of the exclusion of multifamily from residential zones
  3. Extreme deference to localities
  4. Insistence on a “comprehensive” plan
  5. Irreconcilable conflict between planning and zoning
  6. Heavy reliance on legal process as a substitute for sound policymaking
  7. Rejection of aesthetic concerns
  8. Concern with protecting the wealth of well-to-do homeowners
  9. Lack of comparative focus

  If you’re a planner or city geek, some of these items will be familiar to you – particularly the first one. Single-use zoning (or Euclidean zoning) is widely criticized as being hugely detrimental to cities, which is why mixed-use is so much in vogue right now. We’ve realized that there are tremendous benefits to creating neighborhoods and precincts where people can live, work, play, and learn. And not just do one of those things.

  But one point that somewhat surprised me was number 3: the deference to localities. The Old Urbanist’s argument is that around the world – from Germany to Japan – state and federal governments play a much more active role in city planning as compared to the US. And that the result is a different kind of city. As one example, most other countries don’t have single-family detached-only residential zones. The US does.

  Now, you could argue that it’s partially cultural. The US is all about individualism, whereas many other countries around the world have a greater sense of collectivism. But as the Old Urbanist suggests, it could also be because local municipalities are more prone to NIMBYism, which can ultimately lead to downzoning and more restrictive land use policies. Interesting.

  It was surprising to me though because I’m a firm believer in strong cities. They drive the economy and I generally believe that they deserve to look after themselves. And so could it really be that they need higher levels of government to keep advocacy groups and community opposition in check?

  Immediately I thought of the planning environment here in Toronto and Ontario. The Places to Grow Act, which is largely responsible for the intensification we’re seeing across the region, is provincial legislation. And “the Board” (OMB) that hears appeals arising from the municipal planning level is also provincial. So in other words, provincial decisions trump municipal ones.

  Many people believe that the OMB should be abolished. But probably an equal number of people believe that it’s critical to keeping development moving in Ontario. And, given our discussion here, it could be keeping our land use policies in check.

  But at the same time, I wonder if there isn’t a way to structure local planning such that it doesn’t succumb to individual interests and instead keeps the greater city building agenda at the forefront. If you have any thoughts on this, I’d love to hear from you in the comment section below.

  Image: Old Urbanist

  2014.07.29

• Bad neighbors build wind turbines

  

  On Friday when I was driving up to Thornbury, I ended up taking a route that goes through Shelburne, Ontario. I’ve taken this route at some point before, but I don’t remember seeing so many wind turbines. I guess it must have been before this particular wind farm had been built out.

  It turns out that these wind turbines belong to the Melancthon wind facility, which is the largest installation in Canada. The facility contains 133 wind turbines and has the capacity to generate 545,000 megawatt hours each year – enough renewable energy to power roughly 70,000 households. The facility is owned and operated by TransAlta and they’ve entered into a 20-year contract to supply renewable energy to the Ontario Power Authority.

  But what I also happened to notice were the many signs posted around with wording like the title of this post: “Bad neighbors build wind turbines.” And after speaking about it with people over the course of this weekend, I very quickly learned that there was fierce community opposition to this project.

  The concern with wind turbines is typically twofold. People don’t like the way they look and they worry about the noise that they will generate. There’s even an alleged condition called “Wind Turbine Syndrome.”

  I personally think they look quite beautiful. They seem so symbolic of the future and progress. But I am intrigued by the noise concern and so I decided to do a bit of research. I found this video from the UK. The big takeaways are that living beside a main road is generally much louder than living beside a wind turbine, and that a wind turbine isn’t usually that much louder than a quiet suburb, until you get fairly close to it. So I wonder if it’s really as bad as people are making it out to be.

  Either way, the issue at hand is incredibly important. We’re talking about renewable energy. And while you may not like the look of wind turbines scattered across the horizon as much as I do, I strongly believe that we need to figure out ways to wean ourselves off of fossil fuels. It’s for this reason that I’m a big supporter of both wind and solar power.

  So perhaps the counter to those signs scattered around Shelburne is the following: Responsible communities build wind turbines.

  Image: Wikipedia

  2014.07.28

• Is Chicago’s zoning code broken?

  This may sound crazy, but I’ve never been to Chicago. It’s on my list, but I just haven’t gotten around to it and I’ve never had a specific reason to go. Hopefully I can make it this summer.

  Lately though, I’ve found myself reading more and more about the city. Given that it’s also a Great Lakes city and it’s of comparable size, Chicago is an interesting case study for Toronto. But one thing that seems to keep coming up, is the need for zoning reform.

  About a month ago I wrote a post called “The tale of 2 Chicagos”, which was inspired by the blogging of Aaron Renn (The Urbanophile) and Daniel Hertz (City Notes). The discussion was around the prevalence of single-family zoning in most parts of Chicago and how it’s creating a supply constrained market (driving up prices).

  But there’s another outcome. Here’s what Daniel Hertz recently argued:

  When places in and around downtown become more desirable, developers build more housing, and more people get to live there. But when non-downtown neighborhoods become more desirable, developers can’t build more housing: it’s against the law. So instead, they profit by tearing down old two-flats and building mansions in their place. And as a result, fewer people get to live in those neighborhoods, even as more and more people want to.

  Effectively, his argument is that gentrification leads to a loss of housing units. Developers can’t build more housing, so they replace housing. And it all stems from a restrictive zoning code that aims to maintain the character and scale of established neighborhoods. I get that, but you could easily argue that it exacerbates the negatives of gentrification.

  It strikes me that Toronto and Chicago are in somewhat similar places in terms of their growth. Without any real natural barriers, both cities had the luxury of being able to develop through horizontal sprawl when they were younger.

  But with people now returning to city centers, we’re faced with a series of difficult decisions: How do we balance preservation and growth? How do we balance low-density with high-density? How do we maintain the character of what people love while still creating an inclusive city?

  It absolutely can be done, but it’s going to mean embracing a certain amount of change. And that’s not always an easy sell. 

  2014.03.23