Tag: not in my backyard

• #DensityCreep

  The Toronto Star published an article today called: Midtowners battle the rise of the midrise. It’s about a group called The Density Creep Neighborhood Alliance, which was formed in order to fight a 4 storey stacked townhouse project that is currently going through the rezoning process.

  Here’s a snippet from the article:

  “I’m really concerned about my property value going down,” says Lisa Goodwin, 49, a stay-at-home mother of two who has lived in a four-bedroom dwelling on Keewatin Ave. for 19 years. “Right now all the houses are $1.1 to, say, $2.2 (million) but they’re looking at putting in places that are only $500,000.”

  Not surprisingly, social media took hold of this and #DensityCreep quickly started trending on Twitter. BuzzFeed ran a piece called, Toronto Real Estate Is So Preposterous People Are Protesting Condos That “Only” Cost $500K. And somebody even bought densitycreep.com (their site is .ca) and redirected it to NIMBY on Wikipedia.

  There’s so much I could say about this. But you all already know what I’m thinking. So I’ll end with this quote from the article:

  “The simple fact of the matter is that the creation of a more sustainable, equitable, and affordable city requires the development of midrise and other more dense housing options along major roads, subways, and streetcar lines in already built up areas,” says Christopher De Sousa, director of the School of Urban Planning and Regional Planning at Ryerson University.

  We have work to do.

  2015.05.25

• Yes In My Back Yard

  Last week I called somebody a NIMBY. And though I probably shouldn’t have, it stems from the fact that I make a concerted effort to be the exact opposite: a YIMBY (Yes In My Back Yard, as opposed to Not In My Back Yard).

  I appreciate that change can be difficult for a lot of people. In fact, behavioral economic theory (specifically Prospect Theory) suggests that when people are faced with probabilistic alternatives involving risk, they tend to put more weight on the potential losses. This means that the potential benefits have to be, not just marginally better, but hugely more beneficial before people will make the change.

  Because I know I’m equipped with this bias, I try and constantly remind myself that change and motion are good and that oftentimes the potential losses or negatives aren’t going to be as bad as I might initially think.

  However, I also have a counter acting bias. I recently did a personality assessment (called the DiSC assessment) and I was found to be a creator. I would agree with this. What it means is that I prefer “to live in a world of possibilities.” I’m interested not in the way things are done today, but how they could be done in the future.

  And when I think about all the things I’m passionate about—architecture, design, real estate development, cities and tech—there’s a common thread: each one is about imagining something new. Whether you’re designing a building or building a new internet platform, it’s all about possibilities. I believe that the future will be better than today. I’m an optimist.

  But I recognize that this is a distinct personality type. I’m an early adopter. And not all people are like this. That’s why the adoption curve looks the way it does. 

  What would you say is your personality type?

  2014.02.11