Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Blecher_onthe_Hudson t1_j8yr2nj wrote

Reply to comment by Jctexan in Why is planning allowing this building? Eli5 by Jctexan

>The community doesn't support it.

Tough. Letting communities control density has contributed greatly to the current housing crisis in many cities. Nimbies are gonna NIMBY.

13

Jctexan OP t1_j8yryow wrote

If you had read this, you would see the density is supported as mid-rises. Nobody is NIMBYing. It’s a lot to read though, so I get skipping reading and just going for easy quotes.

−3

Blecher_onthe_Hudson t1_j8z3tzv wrote

I read it. You are literally NIMBYing, it's exactly what you're doing. You don't want a building that is too big for a neighborhood, IN YOUR OPINION! The process of empowering everyone to weigh in and veto any and every development plan has gotten us to this point of housing shortage.

I prefer to let the market rather than the incumbent residents decide whether to build 2, 6 or 16 stories. Across the country, people that speak passionately about desiring to preserve their neighborhood's 'special character' are often merely presenting code for keeping it wealthy and white.

Great article about how a town on a SF commuter line fought passionately to keep out condos that might impact their views of the hills and the 'unique character' of their town.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/13/business/economy/housing-crisis-conor-dougherty-golden-gates.html

8

Ainsel72l t1_j8zzcme wrote

That's interesting because a lot of the "incumbents" living here are not wealthy or white. Perhaps you haven't noticed.

3

Blecher_onthe_Hudson t1_j9010tc wrote

I have, which is why I qualified the remark with 'often' instead of saying something like 'always', which would indeed be idiotic.

The NIMBY movement, particularly in California, has done a good job of convincing that segment that dense development poses more of a risk of gentrification than them being displaced from their low density rental homes by rising rents or sale of the property. In my observation this is not the case. Displacement gentrification precedes development not follows it, an area like the Heights is a prime example.

3

Ainsel72l t1_j94kqmi wrote

Dense development is only considered desirable when it is high income or senior housing. Displacment gentrification or development, it doesn't really matter which comes first. The end result is pretty much the same. Call me NIMBY if you want, but huge buildings towering over a neighborhood of houses just look ridiculous. I won't enjoy living close to them.

−1

Blecher_onthe_Hudson t1_j94somc wrote

>Dense development is only considered desirable when it is high income or senior housing.

That's one of the silliest things I've ever heard. Middle income high rises are possibly even more sought after than luxury in the NY Metro.

Besides, in most cases of opposition to density, the horrifying zoning proposal is usually up from single family to 2-4 units, not high rises. In JC people were ready to riot against allowing 4 floors along commercial corridors in R-1 zones, like Palisade Avenue.

2

Jctexan OP t1_j8z5lql wrote

I don’t think one developer’s profit, and a handful of view seekers, should be able to destroy a charming, human scaled neighborhood. We can have density (YIMBY!!!) without non-sustainable, environmentally unfriendly high-rises. This is a wonderfully diverse neighborhood and we can achieve density with mid-rises vs the super dark high-rise areas of downtown. It’s ok to achieve density another way.

1

Blecher_onthe_Hudson t1_j8zo60q wrote

It's amazing how unreflective you are about using the exact same arguments frequently used against small multifamily and midrise. As always, NIMBYs want what they want and contort to justify it.

1

Jctexan OP t1_j8ztc5k wrote

You know calling someone a name doesn’t make it true, right?

2