> Yeah I think some NIMBY resistance to new development would be diminished if new buildings weren't so consistently and intensely offensive to human senses.
This. Being upset that your entire neighborhood has been boxed in by ticky-tack five overs is a pretty natural response IMO.
People like to hate on NIMBY's here but for many cases (not all) I think it's reasonable to care about your neighborhood and to want to prevent outside interests from fucking it up.
It's funny, brownstones originally had similar resistance for being bland and uninteresting yet we find them beautiful now. I think cost effective new housing just isn't going to be that visually interesting, but we need it anyway unless it's going to be expensive.
Yeah, no. This is simply not true. It is simply not true that NIMBYs would opposed only especially ugly building. The complain and actual reality is that they oppose pretty much everything.
If you oppose building in general you are not a NIMBY though.
I guess the slide has been big but isn't the term mostly about, like, prisons, pubs, waste collection centres etc. that they want, but just not near them?
"Sure, the Seattle area needs more housing, but not in our quaint little suburb, that's already gone downhill since whenever I moved in" is a standard NIMBY line.
This. Being upset that your entire neighborhood has been boxed in by ticky-tack five overs is a pretty natural response IMO.
People like to hate on NIMBY's here but for many cases (not all) I think it's reasonable to care about your neighborhood and to want to prevent outside interests from fucking it up.