The Mind of the NIMBY
- Posted by ryan on July 22nd, 2008 filed in Cities
Help me understand it. From the Brookland listserv:
Are we going to lose all of our open space, lose a central commons at the
metro, full of mature trees, and have 100’s of addl. residences crowded on us
for better fast food franchises? Why can’t we place new development in clever
and appropriate places, not everyplace. I go to many parts of DC, Md. and Va.
,, for good food and see the value in preserving a less dense , green, tree full
environment here, for us , for the future.
. China town was developed into a crowded crass, noisy entertainment
destination packed with every franchise restaurant and the chinese restaurants
are pushed out. Homogenization and creating party zones does little to add to
the culture of DC and it is a play ground for Norther Virginians.
Brookland is being overdeveloped, and turned into a suburb “in town” if we let
the city and WMATA force their so called planning down our throats. Shoe horning
every possible development will never preserve a gracious neighborhood. Please
support the people who are questioning the so called planning. Meet with us at
St. Anthony’s, The Better Brookland Development Group will meet Tuesday, July
22, at 7:00 PM at 3400 12th Street, NE, near 12th and Lawrence Street (St.
Anthony¢s Cafeteria). Join John Feeley, an authority on Brookland’s history, our
quality of life, and the commons at the metro depend on it.
In 2002, when I came to this neighborhood, I got off the metro, walked through
the breezy trees and grass, I thought ’how nice, this is well planned’. So I am
shocked that WMATA will wipe it out to reduce their deficit. They need to
control their budget without destroying the gracious areas of our neighborhood.
WMATA is so wasteful and never stops doing excessive expensive unneeded things.
They could learn to provide basic , safe transportation, their planning has been
a disaster, they could learn to cut the crap.
Every town and city throughout history have had a central open park, and tree
full space. DC in it’s infinite stupidity sees our commons as some developers
bonanza. WMATA is a constant disaster, why should anyone trust that unbalanced
organization with our future community. It makes me wonder, why don’t we build
an apartment complex on Dupont Circle or Chevy Chase Circle. Let’s develop 2/3
of Rock Creek Park, tens of thousands can have luxury condos in that park. I
think the canal in Georgetown needs to be lined with apartments.
Northeast has been the abused stepchild of this city for too long. Already
second class citizens as residents of DC, with very few rights. And we are even
less than 2nd class citizens by living in the section of town that gets the
short shrift. Building over the stores on 12th street seems so much smarter
than letting WMATA use our tree filled commons as their little cash cow. When
the chain saws, shrill whine, permeates our neighborhood, denuding the land,
paving over the place, that was so green, it’s too late. With the development
right next to metro by CUA, the immense project at the once tree full, green
Armed Forces Retirement Home, RI Ave. Metro, RI and 13th, ST Pauls and
everywhere else aound here, does it not seem prudent to finish this wave of
development and hold places like the metro in reserve. Our interests and
the character of Brookland will not be preserved by excessive construction.The
argument of our “ planners”that high
density around public transportation is good for the environment is a fraud.
When the new units have garages, parking spaces and they all own cars, they are
frauding us. This is how destructive urbanization and global warming is
spiralling out of control. Every year the US paves over the equivalent area of
Ohio, no one wants to take responsibility for stopping this insanity. We need
to make the right choice. Thankyou
Sigh.
July 22nd, 2008 at 9:06 am
I had no idea the Lorax lived in Brookland! Quelle suprise!
July 22nd, 2008 at 9:21 am
Cheap shots at written grammar aside, there’s a real issue here: if you can’t win these arguments in DC, how are you going to win them elsewhere?
The arguments he makes - in favor of green space, in favor of local control, against crass commercial development, the sense of disenfranchisement at the hands of the wealthy and politically connected - aren’t exactly GOP talking points. These are the critiques the left has been making of American society for about a generation - they’re not materially different from the things Robert Moses’ opponents used to say.
Given that, how do you convince (rather than, as some of your commentors seem wont to do when this subject arises, simply fall back on force majeure)? I ask that because these arguments exist for anyone who cares to make them in the same circumstances, and a generation of repetetion and education have created sympathetic audiences. Anyone pursuing the same course is going to encounter them again, and again, and again.
July 22nd, 2008 at 10:04 am
Actually, the ant-WMATA, anti-transit part of that screed could be considered Republican talking points. But you are absolutely right — it’s important to figure out how to convinve these people. Or at least neutralize them. That said, based on his comment, I would be scared to be alone with this guy — he sounds like he needs to take his meds.
July 22nd, 2008 at 10:06 am
BTW — not to nitpick with a nut, but I think the canal in Georgetown IS lined with apartments.
July 22nd, 2008 at 10:07 am
Nanonymous:
The idea of those arguments may be similar to the opponents of Moses, but the presentation is all wrong. That rant is a nice laundry list of logical fallacies, non-sequitirs, and downright incorrect statements.
Like all other NIMBYs, this is simply an embrace of the status quo. The only way to argue against it is to press on with logical and coherent arguments in favor of the proposed change. Shoot down the incorrect statements. Deny their appeals to emotion (chainsaws denuding the landscape!) with cold logic. Most importantly, enlarge the scope of the discussion - development around Metro stations is a regional issue, not a super-local one - bring those people to the table.
July 22nd, 2008 at 10:13 am
I really don’t know much about this planned development, or that neighborhood generally, but I agree with Nanonymous in that this person has some valid concerns: homogenous development is not wholly a good thing, cutting down mature trees is bad for the living standards of residents, and dense development that still gives in to autocentricity is bad for the environment.
The challenge is to address these concerns while not eviscerating dense development around the metro station. Can the trees be incorporated into the design? Can we insist on non-chain retail? Can we prohibit garages?
It’s a tough thing, because open space in an urban environment is still necessary. As I said, I don’t know Brookland that well, so maybe there are parks around, but if not, then I can sympathize with the commenter. Dense residential development demands well planned open spaces to accompany the density.
And by the way, apartments (and office buildings) do line the canal in Georgetown. There are some small rowhouses on it, but most of it is lined with converted factories or warehouses.
July 22nd, 2008 at 10:22 am
Apologies for my ignorance, but is the plan this person is railing about available for perusal anywhere on the web? (I can’t actually tell what they’re talking about here.)
July 22nd, 2008 at 10:30 am
Reid,
My interpretation is that any kind of development would be ‘homogenous.’
Yes, you need to address the concerns of the NIMBY, but you need to do so in an educational way. Many of those concerns are only loosely related to valid ones regarding a specific project. Yes, losing trees is bad - but losing a few trees to gain a grocery store? Net gain.
The rant clearly rejects the idea of adding density around Metro stations - the problem is that density doesn’t preclude addressing all of the NIMBY’s legit concerns. The challenge is accommodating the legitimate concerns while shooting down the illegitimate ones.
Reading Schrag’s history of Metro, people opposed the freeways, favoring Metro instead. Then when Metro construction came, many opposed that, too. The NIMBY is always arguing in favor of the status quo - a position that’s not supported by history (as cities are incredibly dynamic places, constantly in flux), but one that allows all sorts of appeals to emotion. It’s a shotgun approach to argument - throw everything out there and see what sticks.
July 22nd, 2008 at 10:33 am
Brookland Small Area Plan:
http://planning.dc.gov/planning/cwp/view,a,1285,q,643807.asp
July 22nd, 2008 at 10:42 am
I love how a parking lot is now “green space”.
July 22nd, 2008 at 10:54 am
“Cheap shots at written grammar aside, there’s a real issue here: if you can’t win these arguments in DC, how are you going to win them elsewhere?”
You might have a better chance of winning them in a city where decades of poor governance hasn’t led to a situation where people are Very Afraid whenever the city government wants to do anything in their neighborhood.
Also, given that Brookland has fared a lot better than much of Northeast, I suspect that people see one of the neighborhood’s strengths as being able to maintain the status quo while things deteriorate around them.
A lot of people are still living with the DC-of-the-80’s mentality.
July 22nd, 2008 at 11:26 am
Well, DC is like a big suburb. It’s built on the idea of a City in a Park, all the predecessors of most-WWII Reston/Columbia planning on here: from the early rational grid of L’Enfant with his grand boulevards to the monumental buildings of the City Beautiful plans. It’s all very rational and non-urban.
So is it any surprise when people want to continue living in a park? Not particularly.
Brookland already is a suburb in the city of course, built on those kinds of land use patterns. Developed concurrently with the automobile. It’s a 20th century residential enclave.
I can see why that is what makes it attractive to current residents, whether they realize it or not.
Now, of course, inserting more smart density in smart locations is, well, smart. But when someone thinks that this will turn into Chinatown with its downtown aesthetic and not Dupont or Capitol Hill, I think there has been a problem in terms of selling the concept. Perhaps the visioning is wrong. This person made the leap to Chinatown, without thinking about the neighborhoods in Washington that would be a more apt comparison.
As for this save the trees, stuff. I hope the writer understands that trees do their best carbon filtering up to age 50. The canopy of trees we have in the Washington area is pretty much past its carbon sucking date. And places like Rock Creek Park where we have failed to keep the underbrush clear and have let trees and leaves fall where they may might very well be adding more carbon than they are removing. (Decaying matter releases carbon.)
But I’m guessing the writer doesn’t. Nuance and the power to extrapolate doesn’t seem to be the writer’s strong suit.
July 22nd, 2008 at 12:10 pm
I’ve come to believe that the generation that, e.g., fought off the freeway through Brookland has seen so much that is good be destroyed, and so much that is bad be built, that it seems impossible to build something that is actually good. If most changes are for the worse, then it makes sense to put a halt to changes. This has become the default paradigm for progressives, so although the author of the rant wasn’t there fighting the north central freeway in the 1960s, the outlook is the same.
One thing that would be very interesting, I think, in the case of Brookland, would be to compare the demographic makeup of the Emergency Committee on the Transportation Crisis, when the group was still active, with the (less well organized) group of people in Brookland, such as Ryan (and myself) who think that denser development can be greener and good for the community, etc.
The daunting thing is, if the fight for smart growth is comparable to the fight against the freeway, we’re going to have to do a lot more than sit at our computers posting messages to get what we want.
July 22nd, 2008 at 12:16 pm
Christopher,
I agree with the 2nd half of your statement, but I think the first half of what you wrote is completely wrong.
DC is not like a big suburb, nor was it planned on the idea of a city in the park. Furthermore, I fail to see your connection between a rational grid and non-urbanity - the grid is and has been a crucial element of urban form for generations. It is rational, to be sure, but it is certianly not opposed to urbanity. Nor are radial boulevards, for that matter.
Furthermore, these are values associated with the L’Enfant Washington. Brookland is not within the L’Enfant grid, so I fail to see how that applies.
The crucial elements here are a neighborhood of single family homes at a relatively low density with good transit access. You see the same sort of NIMBYism related to development in other cities, too - this is not unique to DC at all, and has nothing to do with the City Beautiful.
The people want to keep living in a park because they like it, but that ‘park’ is nothing specific to DC.
July 22nd, 2008 at 12:24 pm
Thanks Alex.
July 22nd, 2008 at 12:57 pm
Alex B. scooped me — he’s exactly right. It’s a shotgun-style argument that throws out dozens of nonsensical, self-contradictory points in the hopes that one or more will stick, and that the sheer volume of points will constitute some form of authority no matter how wrong they are.
Take the argument to its source — concern over quality of life in the neighborhood and housing values. Many people support walkable transit oriented development because they look at examples around the region and see that it enhances quality of life. More convenience, more community energy, more options. And that in turn can increase property values. Bridging over the Metro tracks to create a new plaza will certainly increase the quality of the neighborhood environment and civic space.
Seventh street development is the most intense and active example of new development in DC. That level of intensity wouldn’t be appropriate for a neighborhood center like Brookland, nor would the market support it. So that’s just a red herring.
NIMBYs often express fears of “others” invading the neighborhood (in this case, Northern Virginians), but turn it around. More housing supply and diversity means maybe your adult kids starting out on their own can get an apartment nearby, or maybe when you retire and sell your house you can stay in the same neighborhood instead of being forced into a retirement home in the burbs because there are no other choices.
Metro needs to act in a fiscally responsible way and leverage the value of its investments. In other words, transit oriented development is the highest and best use for land on top of and adjacent to Metro stops. Sure, cities need trees, but they don’t need large undeveloped parklands right on top of Metro stations. There are, however, many examples of lush, verdant landscaping that enhance dense, walkable streetscapes.
There is also the democracy argument. The Brookland Area Plan has gone through an extensive public design process to find out what type of development the community thinks is the most appropriate. That puts the NIMBYs at a disadvantage because they waging a rear guard fight with smaller numbers on their side.
July 22nd, 2008 at 1:09 pm
“Brookland already is a suburb in the city of course, built on those kinds of land use patterns. Developed concurrently with the automobile. It’s a 20th century residential enclave.”
I don’t think that’s accurate. I think it was a streetcar suburb, which unfortunately was not the model for 20th century suburbs. We’d be much better off if more suburbs were built like Brookland was.
Also, while mature trees may not process carbon as well as young trees, they absorb heat, which on days like this is priceless.
July 22nd, 2008 at 1:29 pm
Reid,
It was a streetcar/heavy rail (as you know, the Metro is in the B&O viaduct there) suburb in the same vein as College Park, Takoma Park, Silver Spring, Hyattsville, and Chevy Chase.
Arguing about how it came to be is generally irrelevant to the fact that, due to history, there is now a heavy rail Metro station there. It should be used wisely. That means building TOD on what is currently a trash strewn open field. No one’s house should be torn down or anything. Just build on top of the vacant land.
The NIMBY’s who were against the construction of the Metro would never admit that they were ever against it now. Same for the NIMBY’s who were against the creation of Bethesda and the Orange Line neighborhoods in Arlington. The NIMBY’s who are against this devlopment will be the same. NIMBY’s are NIMBY’s until it’s built. Then it becomes status quo and they fight for it against the next project. It’s what they do.
July 22nd, 2008 at 1:31 pm
It’s a little scary to see but the NIMBY’s actions have little to do with what city they live in or how their government has “treated” them. Why do I say that? Because why reading that post I could of attributed it to 1 of 100 projects here in Milwaukee, WI. As someone above said it has little to do with the specific project and everything to do with maintaining the sttaus quo.
July 22nd, 2008 at 2:33 pm
While I agree that this is yet another NIMBY rantn (and poorly written at that), people seem to be confusing the messnger with teh message.
I also think that most of this proposal is awful — it lacks any sort of authenticity, or connection to the past, nor does it build of the communities existing strengths. Basically it is a cookie cutter new urbanism plan that could be plopped anywhere. instead of getting human texture through promoting adaptive use use and local businesses, this project brings cookie cutter neo-urbanism that will price out the small business and affordable housing, leaving the neighborhood with generic chains and bland condos.
Jane Jacobs would be rolling in her grave.
July 22nd, 2008 at 3:04 pm
I’m sorry, but that’s just utterly wrong. Abdo’s development is anything but cookie-cutter, and you can’t possibly say anything about the design of the buildings in the small area plan since there are not yet any designs. And I’d love to know how you’d adaptively use a parking lot.
The biggest barrier to the success of independent business in Brookland right now is a lack of residential density. You want businesses of any sort to succeed on 12th Street or near the station, you need to have a critical mass of people within walking distance. That’s what this plan seeks to create, while also helping to create better connections between the station and the neighborhood, and between the neighborhoods east and west of the tracks.
The anti-development crowd is seeking to protect an essentially auto-oriented, low density neighborhood. I fail to see with Jacobs would enjoy about that.
July 22nd, 2008 at 3:26 pm
And I’d love to know how you’d adaptively use a parking lot.
Appliance storage seemed to be a popular option back in the 1980s. Although today, I’d opt for installing some half pipes and let the skate rats take over.
July 22nd, 2008 at 8:36 pm
A question: What is the position on the new DC parking regulations of these people who complain that:
The argument of our “planners” that high density around public transportation is good for the environment is a fraud. When the new units have garages, parking spaces and they all own cars, they are frauding us.
Based on my experience in other jurisdictions, they are probably the same people who insist on high parking minimums because otherwise outsiders will be parking in “their” streets.
July 23rd, 2008 at 12:30 am
There are legitimate reasons to be weary of this development, but not a single cogent argument was made in this rant.
Trip Within the Beltway points out that putting choke points on this rail ROW could be problematic in the future (although he wants to build a highway along there). I see the logic in maintaining a wide ROW along that route.
This of course doesn’t mean it ought not be developed, it only means that ROW width ought to be taken into consideration.
July 23rd, 2008 at 4:56 pm
L’Enfant designed DC based on 18th century French rationalism, enlightenment principals of social engineering through order. That line of thinking leads directly to modernism with a stop in the City Beautiful era (there’s a reason scholars think that to understand the present you need to understand the 18th century) which was a desire to “clean up” messy organic urbanism with imposed rationality.
And yes, DC was intended to be the antithesis of the cities of the time, the urban grit of Boston, the scattered streets of New York. DC was not intended to develop organically and trees, open space and green space (those coveted aspects of all rationalist suburban planning) with the an emphasis on vistas, parks, the promenade and monumentality, all the necessary components for parading social status. Parading and gazing of course are necessary when strict class structure is dealt away with. Up the scale, and the speed of travel and you have the Brasilia. Or Reston.
When you look at the history of suburban development all the players involved with the City Beautiful movement are front and center: Burnham, Olmstead and even the Sierra Club. (All three, specifically designed and advocated for the St. Francis Wood neighborhood in San Francisco, one of the first planned communities on the West Coast. City Beautiful like L’Enfants French rationalims, the Radiant City Movement and post -WWII suburban planning, is based in the Western pastoral ideal, which of course has its roots in the Biblical story of the fall of man — the farther we move from the pastoral to the urban the more corrupted we are.
So yes, DC was intended as a city in a park, a metaphorical white palace in the garden of Eden. Both the Eden of the pastoral North American continent and the “improved” rational garden of Enlightenment thought.
July 23rd, 2008 at 10:33 pm
Christopher, the philosophy behind the L’Enfant plan is certainly rational - but your connection to Brasillia is a bit tenuous. Perhaps for the monumental core of DC, but not for the city as a whole. The radial avenues merely link a series of squares embedded in a grid system - not unlike many other cities with far less idealistic intentions. Furthermore, none of that is inherently anti-urban. It is certainly a reaction to the organic nature of cities previously, but that does not make it anti-urban in any sense.
Anyways, that’s a theoretical discussion that has little to do with Brookland. I disagree with your charaterization of that mode of thought as a city in a park, but it’s all irrelevant anyway, as a) Brookland falls well beyond the L’Enfant grid, and b) these kinds of NIMBY battles are hardly contained to DC - you can find them in just about every American city.
The expectation is definitely a suburban one. The L’Enfant plan is not suburban. It is meant to be a primary place. Suburbanism, in the most literal sense, is subservient to the urban core. DC was a new kind of urban, mixing the baroque showmanship of Paris with the rational grid - but it was definitely a plan for a central place. That tradition that lead to Olmstead and the manicured, landscaped suburbanism that fuels these kinds of NIMBY rants stems from the ideas of Barry Parker and Raymond Unwin, characterized in places like Letchworth and Welwyn - the “garden cities” of suburban London.
Their work - featuring the idea of the Town magnet, the Country magnet, and their ideal, third way - the Town/Country magnet, is far more relevant to the discussion here. It’s literally trying to take the best of one and the best of the other, with none of the ‘ills.’ That’s the theoretical lineage that this Brookland debate stems from.