The question to ponder is the NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) reactionary forces at work in many American cities curtailing good architecture urban design. Are the concerns over "fitting the character of the neighborhood" too much density, not enough parking in transit oriented development and the highly troubling opposition to "affordable"housing set-asides ruining potentially good if not excellent architectural projects and urban planning objectives.
How do we combat the negative impact on our cities and our profession?
Is there a negative impact or is this what the people want and what they should get?
Some examples to ponder. if you have a chance to peruse the article and comments forum from Chicago DNA INFO. My comments are under the handle PeterJN26, Enjoy:
Capitalism, actually. More like CRAPitalism amirite?
Peter Normand
Sep 19, 17 8:50 pm
Um, no? like all bad relationships it is "complicated"
citizen
Sep 19, 17 9:32 pm
Yes, it's complicated.
People, especially nearby neighbors, can oppose a project for any reason. Any. Often the opposition may seem frivolous and unreasonable. But other times there might be good reason.
It's easy to blame all those damned NIMBYs, but my hunch is that some who wring their hands in stern disapproval of "reactionary" objectors to a project across town might suddenly find a "legitimate" reason to oppose a new condo proposed for the lot next door.
citizen
Sep 19, 17 9:43 pm
^ Not arguing there's no such thing as selfish opposition resulting in obstacles to good new design and development. Only suggesting that to cast it all as the same is plainly inaccurate.
geezertect
Sep 20, 17 7:01 am
Hypocrisy is always alive and well, even in the most progressive of hearts.
There's also no consensus on what constitutes good design.
x-jla
Sep 19, 17 9:35 pm
that's not capitalism. In a true capitalist society I would be allowed to buy a lot next to a church and open a weed bar / strip club.
randomised
Sep 20, 17 2:54 am
Come to Amsterdam ;) Amsterdam's Old Church is dead center in the Red Light District with all the prostitutes and surrounded by plenty of weed bars (we call them coffeeshops for some reason).
joeuk
Sep 20, 17 3:50 am
I lived in Amsterdam for about 9 months and that bit never failed to shock me :-)
randomised
Sep 20, 17 5:38 am
And it's within travel distance of Sheffield!
geezertect
Sep 20, 17 7:08 am
There's always Houston. A little damp right now, but it will dry out eventually.
tduds
Sep 20, 17 1:25 pm
Sounds like Portland.
x-jla
Sep 21, 17 7:29 pm
Problem is Not NIMBY ism, it's the nanny state that empowers it.
randomised
Sep 20, 17 3:03 am
Ah yes, the NIMBY's...gotta love the NIMBY's. They will be against cutting the trees in their street because they got so attached to them and you know nature, but they want to cut down their neighbour's tree for blocking 'their' sunlight.
geezertect
Sep 20, 17 7:12 am
The ones that always crack me up are the ones who want severe height restrictions in the name of views and sunlight, but then can't get it through their heads that means lower ceilings heights and flatter roofs on their own house. Frustratingly, even the builders can't seem to get the concept.
People. Gotta love 'em cuz you can't kill 'em.
randomised
Sep 20, 17 9:22 am
Love your last statement, would do great on coffee mugs and t-shirts.
mightyaa
Sep 21, 17 6:08 pm
Nimby isn’t just stifling good architecture. Nimby is about anti-growth period and stagnation (except when it comes to providing them a personal park instead). What is killing good architecture are planning departments and the public fear of government. The road paved to hell is constructed with good intentions. So… what happens is the public fear (part of which is the loud Nimby voice) ties the hands of government officials to use their own taste for what is good or bad design. That means regulations are supposedly written around ‘good design’. It’s sort of like handing a dozen artist a paint by numbers book some committee put together, pitching the drawings which didn’t follow those rules and being shocked every painting looks very similar and wasn’t that creative or ground breaking. Someday, go to the library (where records are kept before the internet) and look up old zoning codes. They’ll be about 5 pages and mostly limit height & setback. Compare that to what is currently adopted and tell me what is new isn’t stifling the creativity.
Miles Jaffe
Sep 21, 17 7:13 pm
Define "good" architecture.
Among the things that make "good" architecture difficult are: bad architects, bad clients, financial strategies (VE, ROI, etc.), featurization, zoning / codes, "necessities" of marketing and other market forces, etc.
NIMBYism typically occurs after someone builds their dream house. We see it here in Paradise all the time. Like the spec lux builder who is protesting commercial development (allowed by zoning) adjacent to his subdivision.
Money typically rules but there have been instances when masses of people vigorously protesting commercial development have achieved Pyrrhic victories. For example, the local Planned Development District (a.k.a. spot zoning) high-density plan for retail and housing was squashed and we'll probably end up with a car dealership and or lumberyard (existing zoning is "highway business", which a former head of the town zoning department called bad design from the 1950's). On the bright side maybe we won't get another big box store.
Too many people with too much money who think they are geniuses. In the end money is the only measure of value. Basically it's all going to shit faster than we can shovel.
The question to ponder is the NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) reactionary forces at work in many American cities curtailing good architecture urban design. Are the concerns over "fitting the character of the neighborhood" too much density, not enough parking in transit oriented development and the highly troubling opposition to "affordable"housing set-asides ruining potentially good if not excellent architectural projects and urban planning objectives.
How do we combat the negative impact on our cities and our profession?
Is there a negative impact or is this what the people want and what they should get?
Some examples to ponder. if you have a chance to peruse the article and comments forum from Chicago DNA INFO. My comments are under the handle PeterJN26, Enjoy:
https://www.dnainfo.com/chicag...
https://www.dnainfo.com/chicag...
https://www.dnainfo.com/chicag...
https://www.dnainfo.com/chicag...
Capitalism, actually. More like CRAPitalism amirite?
Um, no? like all bad relationships it is "complicated"
Yes, it's complicated.
People, especially nearby neighbors, can oppose a project for any reason. Any. Often the opposition may seem frivolous and unreasonable. But other times there might be good reason.
It's easy to blame all those damned NIMBYs, but my hunch is that some who wring their hands in stern disapproval of "reactionary" objectors to a project across town might suddenly find a "legitimate" reason to oppose a new condo proposed for the lot next door.
^ Not arguing there's no such thing as selfish opposition resulting in obstacles to good new design and development. Only suggesting that to cast it all as the same is plainly inaccurate.
Hypocrisy is always alive and well, even in the most progressive of hearts.
There's also no consensus on what constitutes good design.
that's not capitalism. In a true capitalist society I would be allowed to buy a lot next to a church and open a weed bar / strip club.
Come to Amsterdam ;) Amsterdam's Old Church is dead center in the Red Light District with all the prostitutes and surrounded by plenty of weed bars (we call them coffeeshops for some reason).
I lived in Amsterdam for about 9 months and that bit never failed to shock me :-)
And it's within travel distance of Sheffield!
There's always Houston. A little damp right now, but it will dry out eventually.
Sounds like Portland.
Problem is Not NIMBY ism, it's the nanny state that empowers it.
Ah yes, the NIMBY's...gotta love the NIMBY's. They will be against cutting the trees in their street because they got so attached to them and you know nature, but they want to cut down their neighbour's tree for blocking 'their' sunlight.
The ones that always crack me up are the ones who want severe height restrictions in the name of views and sunlight, but then can't get it through their heads that means lower ceilings heights and flatter roofs on their own house. Frustratingly, even the builders can't seem to get the concept.
People. Gotta love 'em cuz you can't kill 'em.
Love your last statement, would do great on coffee mugs and t-shirts.
Nimby isn’t just stifling good architecture. Nimby is about anti-growth period and stagnation (except when it comes to providing them a personal park instead). What is killing good architecture are planning departments and the public fear of government. The road paved to hell is constructed with good intentions. So… what happens is the public fear (part of which is the loud Nimby voice) ties the hands of government officials to use their own taste for what is good or bad design. That means regulations are supposedly written around ‘good design’. It’s sort of like handing a dozen artist a paint by numbers book some committee put together, pitching the drawings which didn’t follow those rules and being shocked every painting looks very similar and wasn’t that creative or ground breaking. Someday, go to the library (where records are kept before the internet) and look up old zoning codes. They’ll be about 5 pages and mostly limit height & setback. Compare that to what is currently adopted and tell me what is new isn’t stifling the creativity.
Define "good" architecture.
Among the things that make "good" architecture difficult are: bad architects, bad clients, financial strategies (VE, ROI, etc.), featurization, zoning / codes, "necessities" of marketing and other market forces, etc.
NIMBYism typically occurs after someone builds their dream house. We see it here in Paradise all the time. Like the spec lux builder who is protesting commercial development (allowed by zoning) adjacent to his subdivision.
Money typically rules but there have been instances when masses of people vigorously protesting commercial development have achieved Pyrrhic victories. For example, the local Planned Development District (a.k.a. spot zoning) high-density plan for retail and housing was squashed and we'll probably end up with a car dealership and or lumberyard (existing zoning is "highway business", which a former head of the town zoning department called bad design from the 1950's). On the bright side maybe we won't get another big box store.
Too many people with too much money who think they are geniuses. In the end money is the only measure of value. Basically it's all going to shit faster than we can shovel.
"At the end of the day, YIMBY/NIMBY is a false choice. We need to ask: what is being built in my backyard? Who benefits from that development? And who loses?"
Thanks for that, great read!