The NIMBY syndrome is at it again. This week the South
Florida Sun-Sentinel reported that some residents of Boca Raton, a sprawlerrific
town near Miami, have voiced opposition to a development that would transform a
beleaguered strip mall into 104 townhouses. A nearby resident was quoted as opposing the
project because he doesn’t want dense housing in his corner of suburbia. "[If
there had already been] a high-density residential project," he says, "I would
not have bought here." Mind you, these townhouses are only marginally denser than a
tract of single family homes; each would have featured a whopping 3000 square feet, space
for two cars and gates, security and hedges to protect them from the outside world. Only
the most anal density freak would see this as an improvement over what was there. And hey,
who cares about a bit of sun-starched tract housing, right? Wrong – even if what goes
on in Boca Raton is of marginal interest to any city-lover, NIMBYism is a scourge that
affects both the suburban and urban realms.
NIMBY stands for Not In My Backyard and is most often referred to in its
singular form, but I like to tack on the ism, since it is something of an
isolationist mantra, a cult of knee-jerk reactionaries. Generally speaking, a NIMBY wishes
to exclude any development within his or her neighbourhood that he or she deems unfit.
Obvious and understandable examples would be waste-treatment plants or halfway houses, but
more commonly, and most wickedly, the syndrome extends to ordinary residential or
commercial development. NIMBYs are known to raise opposition to dense condominium
projects, low income housing, bus routes, train stations and any sort of project that may
alter the current state of the neighbourhood. In the grand scheme of urban life, NIMBYism
seems to usually afflict neighbourhoods that are at the apex of gentrification, when
virtually all residents are home-owning, wealthy professionals.
NIMBYism should not be confused with simple concern for a neighbourhood’s
well-being. It is perfectly reasonable to object to somebody widening your street or
bulldozing a daycare centre to build a luxury townhouse. But what distinguishes NIMBYism
from other types of neighbourhood activism is the amount of thought put into what is being
opposed. NIMBY manifests itself in automatic, reactionary opposition to any sort of
change, regardless of whether it may be for better or for worse. It is universally
negative – NIMBYs never support anything unless it benefits them directly. It is a
chant of self-interested "antis": anti-this, anti-that, anti-everything.
Neighbourhood activism is an essential tool to block things that will be ultimately
harmful to a community and to suggest ways to improve the community. NIMBY rejects
everything and anything.
Back in 1985, the E-line Arborway trolley that served Boston’s Centre Street was
suspended from service, its route truncated at the beginnings of the Jamaica Plain
neighbourhood. Since then, residents have campaigned to have trolley service restored
along its main street, eventually winning the support of the federal government, an agency
of which ruled last November that restoration shall proceed. Immediately, however,
business owners along Centre Street opposed the future trolley, voicing concerns over
possible reduction of parking. Little thought seemed to be given to potential new
customers who, given a chance to access Jamaica Plain by something other than a crummy
diesel bus, would seize the opportunity to take the trolley and shop. This is prime NIMBYism, shout before thought, an immediate and automatic opposition.
The most hurtful consequences of common NIMBYism are inflated housing prices and lost
opportunity. Many city residents across the United States and Canada have killed
residential projects because of a fear of increased traffic (NIMBYs are perpetually
fearful of a few more people or cars on the street). One such incident occurred in Toronto,
where two residential towers were proposed near the Yonge-Eglinton intersection, set to
replace another highrise. In a National Post article, residents and a city
councillor expressed opposition fearing it would impact a nearby low-density
neighbourhood, bringing extra traffic, wind and shadow to the surrounding area. Never mind
the fact that Toronto has some of the highest housing costs and rents in Canada and that
the site is already occupied by a shorter but uglier commercial tower – instead of
using the land to fulfill housing demand, it will sit as an underused eyesore. In his Toronto
Star column, architecture critic Christopher Hume wrote, "The forces of
NIMBYism, alive and well in North Toronto, will be out to kill [the project] every step
along the way. ... if [it] is refused, it will be a signal from council that the city has
nowhere to go in future but down." Hume is absolutely right.
The fact is, NIMBYism hurts cities. People will continue
to be priced out of the city thanks to short-sighted reactionaries; districts that could
have been vibrant neighbourhoods will remain quasi-suburban, hostage to traffic-fearing
homeowners who wallow happily in their overinflated home values.