Why not in my backyard? Why? Not in my backyard!
NIMBYism is seen as a negative, the selfish not in my back yard reaction of residents to any significant changes proposed for their neighbourhood. But is that always justified? It depends on who you ask.
Certainly slamming NIMBYs makes for
good press, offering developers and planners the high ground in the encounter between
haves, with their commitment to the current environment, and the have-nots. The have nots are supposed to be those (other
than investors) that stand to benefit from the proposed change, be they drivers
on an expanded highway, commuters on new transit connections, potential
dwellers in new apartments, or workers in
new factories, warehouses, and offices.
So, it is
interesting when a media commentator like Kerrie McIvor defends the NIMBYs,
setting out the neighbourhood issues associated with residential intensification
from the ground up.
People who know asking the questions that need to be answered
In fact, there
is increasing recognition of the legitimacy of local communities’ reacting against development that threatens their established
way of life. Yet, the people most immediately
impacted may well ask the most critical questions. They also have the right to ask them if council commitment
to citizen engagement is genuine, and if developers rely on claims of public
consultation to legitimise their proposals.
Denigrating
all local reaction under the singular label NIMBY also obscures the different
motivations of opponents, failing to distinguish those that resist change as
a matter of course from those whose insights and experience raise legitimate
questions.
Protecting the right to do it badly?
Dismissing
local opposition risks lowering the barrier to ill-conceived projects. If a
proposal cannot meet the challenges raised, questions must be asked about its
merits. In some cases, no development will
be better than poor development. In others,
some modification, even moderation, may lead to enhancements that make a
project more acceptable to locals and more attractive to the beneficiaries. Taken
seriously, local opposition might result in better outcomes all round, if for
example, it leads to better standards, design,
and delivery.
Unfortunately,
weak or token consultation, entrenched positions taken by advisors, and blue
sky financial or fiscal expectations by promoters lead to the discounting of
local expertise and reservations. This is
especially so when encountered only when advanced plans are revealed to which
the promoters are committed.
There is more
to NIMBYism, then, than resistance for resistance’s sake. After all, the challenge
of planning is to reconcile development with environmental and community values.
Busting down the doors – clogging up the pipes
Take the response
to the failing housing market of the last two decades. Neighbourhood resistance to intensification garners
little sympathy from decision-makers and commentators who simply see it as pitch
by those with secure housing in established neighbourhoods against those in
need of the shelter and security that they enjoy. This is over-simplifying
things.
Housing policies
have relied too often on adoption of residential intensification to boost
supply. When planners and developers
choose a location for intensification because of its attractiveness, based on
its current character, the risk is that they end up creating is the antithesis of what was
there. Nobody wins (except, perhaps, the
developer).
The result is
reliance on expensive land within boundaries often ill-equipped to cope . Affordable
housing under these circumstances means low cost, low quality dwellings, while
the subsequent bill from over-loading ageing and capacity-constrained infrastructure
- our roads, pipes, parks, and waterways
– mounts. Ratepayers – existing residents
and new – foot the bill.
Looking out for the beneficiaries
Simple-minded
solutions to difficult problems – a shortage of dwellings in this case – can
lead to outcomes that benefit no-one. Dig deeper into the aspirations of the
unhoused, and it may be that the opponents of increasing density in urban areas
are championing what many people want and what apartment living fails to
provide.
Local
communities resisting change can be seen as the champions of the values that people
today see as rights: clean air, water clean enough to swim and fish in (and
drink), access to sunlight and green space, limits on noise and light
pollution, a degree of visual and aural privacy, reasonable access to private
services and public amenities, and security.
There is no
guarantee that the aspirations of future residents will be met by pockets of high-density
housing. Evidence from a study of five UK cities indicates that denser
neighbourhoods are still “more likely to provide poor access to quality green space”,
while their residents “are more likely to report to feel unsafe [and] experience
less social interaction than in lower density suburbs”.
Too often, the
rush to compensate the failures of the housing market have led to alternatives
that fail to deliver to the beneficiaries – the occupants of the new homes.
Equity should not rely on lowering standards
So, when
communities call for protection of their living space and the quality of the
local built environment, they are not denying it for others. They are calling
on those that can make a difference to do so in ways that add to the appeal of
urban living, rather than destroy it. Urban plans that prioritise the
destruction of organic suburban spaces to deliver sub-standard outcomes are
about pursuing a form of urbanism that lowers the quality of city living and
achieving equity by lowering the well-being
and expectations of an entire generation, not simply those that happen to make
the most noise about it.
No comments:
Post a Comment