If You Hate Density, Maybe Don’t Live in A City
Vložit
- čas přidán 27. 04. 2024
- When you argue for housing reform to legalize denser development in our cities, you quickly learn that some people hate density. Like, really hate density, with visceral disgust and contempt for any development pattern that involves buildings being tall or close together.
Keep Urbanity rolling:
Join our Patreon for early releases, credit at the end of each video, and bonus content: / ohtheurbanity
Contact form: docs.google.com/forms/d/1NeAL...
Subscribe on CZcams: / @ohtheurbanity
Instagram: / ohurbanity
Twitter: / ohurbanity
For professional inquiries, please fill out the following contact form: docs.google.com/forms/d/1NeAL...
Would you prefer to read rather than watch? We've set up a blog at ohtheurbanity.ca to post video transcripts (and other content that fits better in text form). Here's the transcript for this video: ohtheurbanity.ca/2024/04/28/if-you-hate-density-maybe-dont-live-in-a-city-video-transcript/
Thank you. This and the captions are helpful.
Megalithic buildings are boring to walk past. The beauty is hard to find. There is little variety in greenery, and very little wildlife except rodents.
Also noted that views weren't mentioned until about 7 minutes in.
Im a 50/50 person.
Ooohh 👍 maybe set this as your username over on Bluesky, too?
Cities have to change. It's what they do. NIMBYs aren't just monopolizing access to citys' amenities, they are choking cities to death.
True too.
Ha, someone watched strong town's last video ;)
The conflict is not about hating cities, it is about the movement to turn suburbs into cities and force the current residents to move into the countryside.
As always, the only PRACTICAL variable that matters is FAIRNESS:
quantifying HOW MUCH sacrifice vs benefit each individual gets.
@@theultimatereductionist7592Turning them into retirement homes for the wealthy, and turning the few young that can scrape in, into a slave class.
Phew, thank you. Living in a city and demanding that it not have urban density and grow and change is like living in a rural area and wanting to exterminate all the wild animals so you don't have to listen to crickets at night or secure your garbage cans against scavengers. The answer to these problems isn't get rid of all the animals/force out all the renters. The answer is "the nature of the place isn't *for* you, move somewhere else".
Sounds like the same people
The funny thing about rural living is that it is also predicated on deforestation and destroying the biodiversity and ecological places that existed before.
@@thefunkydeep446 Sounds like suburbanites. Want the best of both world without the drawbacks.
unfortunately nimbys are homeowners and not the ones who actually leave lol
Seriously though, how many NIMBYs are actually working young people rather than retirees and property investors?
Excellent point!
probably VERY VERY FEW.... nimbys are 95% old white people with money and an inferiority complex, those who are easily caught up in group think.
@@zen1647 it’s not a point, it’s a question that can be answered with “very few”
@@scottduke2809 This!
Sometimes, working young people believe that if they personally cannot afford a suite in a new condo -- what Jagmeet Singh calls lugjury condos -- then those condos are bad and should not be built. The concept that expanding the housing stock benefits everyone shopping for housing is a difficult one.
It is entitlement, plain and simple. “I was here first and I want the city to provide me with the amenities without anyone being in my way.” And the funny thing is that by and large, these are the same people that label today’s youth as entitled.
Similarly, the car-addicted suburbanite propagandists who preach the loudest about toughness also have an irrational fear of crime and homeless people, usually motivated by politics.
EXACTLY! TOO STUPID TO COMPREHEND that THEY came along AFTER SOMEBODY ELSE.
They want the best of both world. Similar with car driving!
And often it's these same old parts who are the transplants who push out the young people who have always lived there.
_"Pilling (sic) humans into meat lockers only destroys all that gives meaning to being a human."_
Then why do you drive a car?
😂 They could never comprehend the irony.
The only time that guy goes outside is to mow the grass
still more personal space in a car than any public transport.
@@definitelynotacrab7651 what better alternative do you suggest than a large car?
@@ligametisNotice how your mind goes to being forced to take public transit instead of being able to walk or bike. If cities aren't built around cars and instead are built around people (in otherwords made less sprawling and more dense) you wouldn't be forced into any form of transit. And that would include being able to take a car if you choose to. But other people wouldn't be forced to take that option.
What the NIMBYs don't realize is that the jobs, amenities and service are in the city BECAUSE OF THE DENSITY. They wouldn't exist if if there wasn't the gravity behind huge population drawing them there.
For example, a large hospital with top of the line surgical or highly specialized treatment capabilities wouldn't be there if not for the population in (more or less) a single place. There is a reason things like these don't exist in small communites. Same goes for cultural venues, or shopping options etc.
Fighting against density is literally fighting against the thing that provides what you seek in a city.
I've met so many Uber drivers who moved to the city because they couldn't find work in the small towns they grew up in. Life is still tough for them but they at least have something that provides for them in the city and it is because of the benefits of density.
OTOH less dense cities work just fine. Maximum density turns cities into Calcutta. Do not presume to assert what I seek in a city.
Prior to the 1950s, it wasn't so common for people to own an entire block of land with a detached house. Townhouses were one of the most popular forms of living. The living conditions in England, with long rows of dense townhouses, are more representative of how people have lived for most of the history of cities.
So you’re a reactionary?
You are perfectly demonstrating the FALLACY OF TRADITION... it is a logical lie. one another thing for you is "EVOLUTION" look those too things up.
@incredulousmidwit I just think the comment highlights that suburban car dependency hasn't proven it's long term practicality but denser, walkable, mixed use neighborhoods have been around for centuries if not longer.
Your comment invites us to bear in mind how townhouses got their name in first place. That was simply what a house in a town looked like. SFHs are really just ersatz farmhouses in agglomerations of millions.
Prior to the 1950s most people did not live in cities at all but in rural areas and small towns. Actually, it was pretty common for people to have a plot of land with a detached home. That was called a farm and the large majority of the population engaged in an activity called farming ;)
The people saying "we can no longer afford to live like humans" have never had a history lesson in their life or opened a history book. Ancient Roman cities were filled with 2-3-4 and even all the way up to 7 story buildings, many of them with shops and workshops on the bottom floor and homes above those, wall to wall to the next building. Apartments was what most people lived in in cities for thousands of years. Only the most rich and powerful people were able to have Villas within the city, we are talking about people like Caesar and these were the extreme minority. Just go look at old European cities, while obviously these aren't ancient buildings, what you see in these old European cities is what the vast majority of people lived like in cities for thousands of years.
There were people that lived in a "detached single family home" but these were people living way out in the farmland (AKA the places we call Rural nowadays.). This whole thing about having a single family detached home with a large yard is a recent concept, just like with the car. A concept that has only really existed for about 70 years, maybe a couple of centuries if you want to include the very rich people in say France with their large mansions with large yards (because having a large yard just be empty was a way to show that you had so much money, that you could waste it on having empty wasteful piece of land. It is NOT a good thing, it was people showing off.) and even those rich show off aristocratic French nobles only had those wasteful mansion OUTSIDE of cities.
These cities that have been torn down and ripped apart for the car, these cities that are being wasted to build isolated private boxes for everyone, these are abnormal to being "human".
But even having said all that, I'm not trying to take away your abnormal way of life, all I want is for the other "normal" way of life to be an option. You want your single family detached house? FINE! Have it, be happy! Maaaaybe your house will be a little bit further away than it is now or maybe it just means that two streets away from your home we build some duplex/triplex/townhomes/4 story appartment buildings. But you know what actually, your single family detached home with a yard might actually end up being CLOSER to the city, because since we have now built those more dense homes that means that a certain percentage of people that have been living in the single family detached homes next to you might choose to move into those more dense homes, which means we don't need as many single family homes with large yards that cause every home to be that much further away from the other, so in the end you end up being closer to the city.
NIMBYs seem to think that the view from their window, the occasional walk in a nearby empty field next to all the other empty fields that will still be there, and ideas about increased congestion (even though this can be solved in many other ways that don't involve banning more people) is more important than other, perhaps less privileged people, having the opportunity to be able to buy or rent a home and live a better life. It just seems very selfish and self-centered to me, that you can't even fathom giving up the smallest inconvenience for the benefit of lots of other people.
it's kind of astounding how far some of them go with these ideas. like there's stuff that genuinely wouldn't even affect them that they're unwilling to change. like putting a small corner store in a suburban area is an idea shot down by SO many nimbys. except cornerstores aren't loud. and the people going there are just going to be their own neighbours. and it won't attract more cars and such because people will walk there because it's a corner store. and the people who will be helped by it will be genuinely helped a lot. suddenly kids don't need to be chauffeured to buy like la croix or whatever it is kids are into these days and same for elderly people or people who can't drive due to medical reasons or maybe because their car broke down or maybe they don't have a car or they're a one car household and someone else in the household is using the car right now. but nimbys are so against this change because it's a change.
and honestly that's one of the better examples i can give. i told my aunt she should try planting native wildflowers in a part of her yard that she doesn't use much. her family doesn't like to do any yard maintenance, and there are a couple of species of native wildflowers in her area that are very low maintenance and hardy and require practically no upkeep, plus it's good for bees and birds and they also look pretty. her hoa told her she's not allowed to do anything of the sort because it will "change the character of the neighbourhood". planting flowers in your own yard.
You know what's worse than having the skyline change? Seeing more homeless people on the ground. But that's what happens when you block housing so much that it becomes impossible to afford the city. I'd much rather have my environment adapt to new conditions than let it stagnate and leave people behind.
@@machtmann2881 you don't have to see them if you don't allow them to loiter there.
@@lampstax lol they're always there. You can't really BAN poverty. Homeless people aren't homeless just because they're not in your view. At most, you just make someone else see them because it's just pushing around the problem instead of solving it.
@@ishathakor not doing anything out of the ordinary to avoid "changing the character" just means the neighborhood has no character. Is it any wonder kids today would rather just stay inside on screens all day than go outside? There's nothing to explore out there in a sterile environment!
The genuine friendliness and compassion with which this thorough and concise takedown of NIMBY arguments was issued is really impressive and refreshing. I love the subtle ribbing that, "ya know, the YIMBYs are the ones most committed to true free market capitalism."
I love how libertarian news sources like Reason and Cato are increasingly becoming pro-urbanist. However, they occasionally still employ pro-car propagandists like Steve Greenhut.
@@crowmob-yo6ry Interesting! I haven't been presented with recent pro-urbanist content from Cato (and I don't think I've seen any older pro-car content either). What are those sources picking up on? Is it just the deregulating restrictive zoning? Is it overall land use efficiency?
Urban nimbys just want to externalize costs while internalize benefits as landowners. If I could do it simcity style I'll just severely limit car traffic between SFH neighborhoods and city center, by reducing lanes/speed or installing automatic toll/congestion ddvices.
Reductionism is about forcing NIMBYs to pay for /endure/suffer the negatives/costs of their chosen lifestyle along with the positive benefits.
'I want all the conveniences of a city but don't want the density that allows said conveniences'
People can live where they want, but I'm rather tired of the cities having to subsidize the suburbs. If we stopped subsidizing their fuel, the market would move people back into the cities.
Mhhh, don’t think it works to cecede 😊 The standard reply in my neck of the woods to this type of proposals is; What if we built a wall around Stockholm and check after four weeks on which sides the clawmarks of people trying to get out are! My guess is the inside 😎
@@hendrikbijlooIf you locked all the nurses in a hospital without food they would die, but that doesn't mean their jobs are useless.
Some farmers think they're gods.
@@hendrikbijloo If you allow for the free movement of goods in and out, the people in the city have everything they need or could want. If you don't live in the city, why do you care? Newsflash: it's not all about you.
Or, subsidize the suburbs in the right way, building light rail from the suburb to the city and bike paths as well, with lots of nodes of businesses and parks along the way!
You're drifting off track from the topic of this particular video
There's a relevant quote I remember reading about my hometown of San Francisco. It said basically that the city was at its peak the first moment a person moves here. When that moment was differs for every person, but they all seem to agree that change of any kind must be forbidden. These people fail to realize that by preventing any development or change they are calcifying the city as a static museum piece like Venice Italy, where no one can afford to live or be apart of the culture and community.
Historic preservation of the charming victorian and edwardian era rowhouse character of the city is often used to block redevelopment, but I think there are low density areas in the Western Addition, Outer Sunset, etc with existing high capacity transit that can easily be redeveloped at much higher densities. Same with Geary, especially if and when that bus line is upgraded to Muni Metro. New buildings of flats can average out at 6 stories, and have garden courtyards for families to use.
Berlin/Paris style mid-rise row houses is the absolute best configuration, IMO. There are many reasons you don't find high-rises in many dense urban areas in Europe.
I think the reason you don't find high rise buildings in many European urban areas is because they didn't have the technology 200 years ago to build very high.
I agree. Recentyl visited Paris, lived in Berlin many years. 5 to 6 stories and very densely built around the core is the optimal situation for a thriving city. We are in Barcelona now. Also a nice density, but unfortunately lots of ugly modern buildings with 7 to 8 stories. Not the beautiful facades of Hausmann or Schinkel, which my wife and I prefer.
@@zen1647 Naw. Enough towns were flattened in WW2, during the 60's and 70's for cars, and during and after the fall of the USSR that there was plenty of opportunity ... if anyone had wanted to.
But look up Brusselization. It is ... almost NIMBYism on a continental scale. Just NIMBYism most people would agree with.
Yes I love midrises! I can sometimes sympathize with people who don't like super tall buildings but I am always confused about the objection towards midrises, or smaller high rises
@@zen1647😂😂😂😂😂
Yes to ALL of this.
I too come from a small town (30,000 people, and it's one of the bigger towns in my home state), and now live near a city (a metro area of about 6.5 million). I'd LOVE to live in the city core, but can't afford it. Yet I've also watched as people in that city have tried to get a parking lot designated "historic" so that a new apartment building wasn't built on the site. And in spite of the city having a very small footprint, it has a shocking amount of space devoted to detached, single family homes. It's semi famous for its rowhouses, but there's a large part of the city few people see that looks like classic North American suburbs. Though I think they're old enough that they still have sidewalks, so that's nice.
I accept that urban living isn't for everyone. I also know that anti-urban sentiment is pushed at us constantly from every angle and across the political spectrum, from movies & TV which portray cities as scary, dangerous places, to politicians who go on about crime and urban decay. Not to mention all the people who talk about wanting to "live in nature" but don't consider how much damage they do by building their house, running power & water, building roads, etc.
Again, I'm not saying everyone has to live in a city. But for us who desperately WANT to live in a city, it would certainly be nice if we had that option. And clearly, a lot of us do, or else cities wouldn't cost so danged much.
This isn't a criticism but where I live a community with $30,000 people is a city. I currently live in what is considered a medium town of about 800 with smaller towns around with 300 and villages of 100. We are close to a city with about a quarter million that is considered the "big city". I just find it interesting how where we live can so greatly affect our perception of what counts as a town or city. Cheers!
What city do you live in? 6.5M in the u.s.? Has to be nyc
@@VideoGameMarimbist, you're right about perception. That "small town" I'm from is considered a city, too. It's the 3rd largest in the state, with the largest being only twice its size. The nearest big city is Boston, which is two states away (about 4 hours by car). I didn't think of my hometown as being small until moving away and traveling a lot. It's surrounded by a lot of smaller towns with populations in the hundreds, not thousands. High school basketball is hugely popular in the state and the big tournaments happened in my town. Folks from around the state would show up, and sometimes it was their first experience with things like, buildings over three stories, non-American food, shopping malls, four plus lane roads, etc.
@@goldbrick2563 - ATL Metro has 6.5 million.
@@goldbrick2563 6.5 (actually, I just looked it up, and it's 6.3) million in the metro area. The city itself only has 700,000. I'm in the area around Washington D.C. I want to live in D.C. itself, but the average apartment cost is almost twice what I pay where I'm at. And usually the only thing I can find even close to my price range is a tiny basement apartment in a not great neighborhood.
NIMBYism is essentially “all this stuff should exist but only for me”
Another good reason to build out a city's transit system and extend it well into the suburbs and exurbs.
With a good commuter rail system, you can live in a sprawling house on an acre of land, drive 10 minutes to the train station, and be in the city core in 30-45 minutes. You don't have to fight traffic, or pay $30 for all-day parking. Or live surrounded by "non-people".
With a GOOD commuter rail system, you can do this late at night and on weekends. With an EXCELLENT system, there will be a station close by, and there will be so many stations that the "non-people" won't try to move to your small town just because of the train. [They would scatter across dozens or hundreds of stations.]
When I was much younger, my dream life was to live out in the woods and split logs for the wood stove in the morning, then shower, dress, and attend the opera downtown later the same day. A good transit system would make this possible.
What you just described already exists. Its called New York. Most rail commutes are less than 50 minutes from suburb to city, and intracity service is good.
@@starventure Right but we need it for many more cities. My state has a major city that is basically where most of the jobs are (at least assuming Indeed is correct) and driving there takes hours because of the traffic and not because of the distance. It's only 60 miles for me. It takes so much less time to get there in the middle of the night due to the lack of traffic. We have no rail system to take people there. There is a proposed high speed rail system that have never started since 2017 (yet they have the money to completely rebuild the interstate that is still ongoing..)
Yup, lived in Japan for 8 years & that was true for much of the country. It was quite nice!
@@starventure
Except it is also the only city like that in North America, which drives housing costs in the area sky high
@@Demopans5990 Oh, there are better reasons that the price is so high in NYC. The problem is nobody has the guts to talk about it out in the open.
Nimbys want to have their cake and eat it. Don't like other people living around you? Womp womp lil bro move then 💀💀
So you want to chase out the taxpayers, and replace them with non-taxpayers? Is this your plan?
Exactly!
The NIMBYs are most likely older owners on the verge of retirement (who else has the free time and money to wage these anti high rise campaigns?) They don't want their perceived value of their property lowered before they sell and cash out to retire in Thailand or central america lol
You give them too much credit. Money focused middle class people are the sort who tend not to appreciate the charms and struggles of building a new life in an exotic locale. They just want the status of having net assets in the seven figures, as high as they can reach.
Even though it’s proven that modern apartments and multi-family units raise property values of the nearby area. My NIMBY parents sold our old home in a historic neighborhood of a small city due to exactly the “perceived” value of their property. They actually thought multi-family housing and the “other” people were going to affect their property value so they moved to the exurbs to an upscale midcentury culdesac. Our old house was in our family for two generations. So sad
I think you nailed it with this video. And I'm glad you touched on the systems of community input, because I think one of the best ways to tackle our housing crisis is actually to limit input and opinions. Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one, and just because you have an opinion, doesn't make it valid (also could be perfectly valid). Letting everyone who has an opinion (valid or not) slow down a project at every level, because of whatever petty thing, is absolutely one of many sources of our housing problems. I'm not saying we shouldn't have consultations around large development projects, because we should, but there needs to be reasonable limits on how much and how long a project can be stalled for because people aren't happy about shadows.
British Columbia is shifting the community engagement to the development of Official Community Plans - which have to account for expected housing need - and then individual projects that are compliant with the plan *cannot* have a public hearing.
A lot of people (NIMBYs) are freaking out about it, but I'm hopeful it will force people to actually reckon with the tradeoffs necessary. If they don't want towers, they'll need to allow enough mid density to accommodate the necessary amount of new housing instead, and won't be able to block any particular midrise when it applies for rezoning or development permits. I think that would be more transformational of existing low density neighbourhoods than allowing towers on arterial streets, but NIMBYs haven't had to seriously consider that tradeoff while they've been able to cut down or block every individual proposal for years.
A lot of NIMBYs associate density with a certain socioeconomic status they consider undesirable. There is a lot of unspoken (and sometime spoken) bigotry and or even racism in some NIMBY arguments.
The amount of times I've heard "I don't want my city to end up like Bangladesh" speaks volumes. It's nonsense anyway. Poor, overcrowded cities are not the future of these towns. If North American cities tried, they would just end up like the nicer, dense cities of Europe they pay thousands of dollars per year to visit anyway.
Well, do YOU want to be a taxpayer in a city of non taxpayers? Your answer will reflect your character, so take some time to consider it. And yes, race and culture DO matter, because everytime some wannabe gentrifier throws in the towel and leaves the city that they helped destroy, it is an admission that not all people are equal and not all cultures are good.
@@machtmann2881Having been to some cities in India and Pakistan, I can sympathize with their fears. Those places ARE shitholes, and they should not be idolized but considered as warnings against bad urban planning.
Not surprisingly, the same NIMBYs have an irrational fear of crime and homeless people.
@@starventure Pffft, no one idolizes cities in India and Pakistan. Especially not Indians and Pakistanis themselves. But those are poor countries with poor planning and bad urban planners that don't have the resources to think ahead. Cities in highly developed countries won't become anything like that. If anything, they have enough resources to become another London or perhaps Vienna. Instead, many wealthy cities are on track to become another San Francisco where the city is great if you're lucky enough to be rich but leaves you to die on the streets if you're poor.
Very few people actually want to live in small cities/rural. They want all the benefits of cities with none of the disadvantages.
Not even that tbh just over idealised version of country towns and villages.
Wrong, lots of people do, but they don't want public services to be 30km away
@@raphaelcaceres9129until 200 years ago even rural even fairly compact. Heck in the global south many remote villages they are still as compact as possible especially considering the wwy they farm.is alll hands on deck
This is what I've never understood about nimby's, myself personally I like to live on the farm in the countryside I've lived in the city for a few years but it's not for me and that's okay. I will never understand someone who wants to live in a city but doesn't want to live around a lot of people or have tall buildings in density. No one's forcing you to live in the city that's changing as cities always do just move out if you don't like it. I don't know if you've ever driven across North America but there is many many millions of acres of open land where you can be totally left alone.
This is what all Nimbys need to be told-move to a small town or outward to get the low density you want.
And our cities are so sprawling that if you moved to a location in less demand and then voted to relax zoning restrictions everywhere, where you just moved to would be the one of the last places to change.
They get SOOOO mad when I suggest it lmao. And it's funny, the towns I suggest they move to are literally like a 15 or 20 minute drive outside of the city, but nope, that's too much of an inconvenience to them. Imagine being a disabled person who can't drive, being stuck in an apartment complex that requires MINIMUM 10 minute walk to get to just a gas station. There's 1 bus that comes every 30 minutes and it's PACKED shoulder to shoulder with students because the city can't add to the transit budget because "you" keep yelling at city hall. How inconvenient is MY life ?! ugh. The NIMBYism is actually a detriment to society imho at this point.
In order for someone to move out of a city there must be a place for them to move to. That means the solution is really more suburbs, exurbs, and rural development. So what you are really saying is sprawl is the solution. I am all for this. Time to empty out the cities and return to nature.
@@Novusod You think suburbs are a return to nature? lol
@@Fenthule NIMBYism is arguably the top 1 or 2nd biggest issue in the Western world imo (aside from potential war with Russia/China). The other issue being climate change, which arguably won't be as impactful in the next 10-20 years. The good (and bad) news is that NIMBYism is also a major roadblock for installing carbon neutral energy sources, so a more united fight against NIMBYism is the way forward.
My favourite argument against apartment complexes is, "not everyone wants to live in one." The inverse argument, not everyone wants to live on a large lot, hasn't even entered their mind yet.
Every time I bring that up, or say "not everyone wants to drive a car" they always happen to move the goalposts because there's no serious argument against it.
That last sign was the WORST. Stop demolishing family houses for highrises?? How about stop hogging so much land to house so few people that newcomers have to be stacked into highrises whether or not they even like them. 🤬
And it's going to happen eventually anyways. Over here in the NYC suburbs, the growth of a nearby Chinese community essentially turned most of northeastern Queens into a massive Chinatown. And the flybynight Chinese builders ignore zoning codes, so you get 4 story houses on land zoned for single or double floor houses
NIMBY should be renamed to NIAPNMBY (Not In Any Place Near My Back Yard) because they complain about what is literally NOT in their back yard.
I know my suggested acronym is not very catchy though.... maybe Not In My Area (NIMA)?
Hey don't ruin my name like that
I think the go-to is BANANAs - Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything
This sounds like nothing more than rich people‘s arrogance at this point. People who aren‘t rich have no choice than to live in small(er) appartments in dense(r) neighborhoods. Not everyone can afford to buy or rent a whole suburban house and have a car. And those people neither want to see this people and call them „non-people“? More than disgusting.
We shouldn‘t take this seriously as a society.
And don’t you think that a lot of the poor people forced to live in those apartments HATE it and are desperately looking for a way to escape and never go back? Someone noticing that living in an apartment ruins their mental health and quality of life isn’t arrogant for noticing it, but I guess you’d rather poor people just drink themselves to death or sign up for MAID rather than aspire to a bit of breathing room. Poor people wanting anything good for themselves are obviously arrogant, so it’s a good thing that you’re around to remind us of our place.
You've missed a big elephant. Low density, especially single-use sprawl, is enormously expensive and doesn't pay its own way. It relies on the dense areas to subsidize it. So the NIMBYs are also freeloaders. Rework property tax allocation to have those who live in low density pay the real cost of the services and infrastructure they rely on. Over time (not long) people will gravitate toward what they can actually afford, and that's going to be higher density and, ideally, mixed use. In the short term, some of these new neighbourhoods will be more expensive because they are both brand new and desirable. Build enough of them to meet demand and many urban social issues will resolve themselves.
Ive done a lot of coming and going between cities, small town and mid size cities in the last few years so I had the chance to discover the the good and the bad sides of all those places. I grew up in a big city, Montreal, and yes neighboors can be annoying and appartments are smaller, the chaos and noise is sometimes overwhelming, etc. However, I always felt free in Montreal without a car and if I needed a car to get out of the city it was easy to rent one in my neighbourhood. I also loved the overwhelming options of restaurants, coffees, libraries, sports, basically things to do and place to discovers. Stopping density in a city like Montreal goes against the very idea of big city. If you want more calm and your house you move like I did.
I've also lived in two mid size cities (200 000 and 500 000) and both had good side and bad sides. One had horrible public transit, the other great one, one had too many people, the other very few because of very low density. Both had good and bad sides again, but it was a good middle ground.
And finally I moved to a tow of 6000 people, with mostly houses, only the basic commerce, no bars, two or three pizzeria and a small cinema, but still very small. While I can walk in the town it very much feels like a prison at time because we need two cars to go to work and we need a car to do most activities. It's also an hour to most big cities around. I like having a garden, having a forest so close and the quiet, but in the end we choose to move back to the city because we decided the trade off were too important. We choose to leave because no place is perfect but we prefer the goods of a city.
People who are unhappy with density and value low density above all else can choose to move in a small town too. No place is perfect, but in the end you are responsable for yourself. If you dont like a place, just move. Dont try to stop people from moving there.
People literally forget that the density of a city is what allows many of the jobs, restaurants, boutiques, and amenities that make a city great to happen at all!
Public transit becomes more profitable when there are more passengers, businesses make more money because more people = more potential customers, businesses profit because there are more customers and also because there are more talented workers to choose from!
Literally one of the reasons why the Quebec City-Windsor corridor High Spped train has even the slightest hope of happening is because it's the most densely-populated areas in Canada!
Like, I get it, I live in a concrete high-rise and my condo is kind of small, but let's not forget that we have a housing crisis going on! And not everyone wants to live in a single-detached style house!
I agree. You can vote with your feet; just leave if you don't like urban areas.
If you dont love it, leave it
What stops you from leaving these nimby cities and go live your life in some eu cities with all the density and walkability you fantasize about ?
@@lampstax Why bother when we can change what we already have?
@@danielkelly2210 why bother leaving when you can stay and fight to keep what you already have ? .. probably some NIMBY saying the same.
@@lampstaxIf the majority would prefer to change it, it makes far more sense to change it
that cringe when people who don't even know their neighbors suddenly want to dictate exactly who their neighbors are.
Have you ever met a NIMBY that changed their tune? I feel that everything to them is black or white, us vs them, etc. Are they capable of understanding nuance?
Thanks for the video. In my metro area, this applies to the really nice first ring suburbs too where too many NIMBYS try to steam roll any tall buildings or more housing because it "isn't why I moved to this city and it would ruin the character". But then in the same breath virtually all of them are disappointed there are literally no opportunities for their kids or grandkids to find an affordable house in the neighborhood since everything is so over priced and hyper appreciated.
Your arguments are so much more palatable from an honest conversation standpoint!
Im not from Sydney but the NSW government just announced zoning changes in and around future transport hubs, not huge high rises, just medium density, 4 and 5 story apartment blocks and what ive seen on the news people that already live around these transport hubs are going off their nut like they are going to wake up one day and have leprosy because of these new buildings.
These people are living in the North American bubble, and are completely detached from reality. It's their way of thinking that has made so many Canadian cities practically unliveable, due to how unaffordable housing has become. Here in Vancouver's westside, they'll try to block every development from happening, even low rise developments, and they've been very successful. Most of the cities on the planet are full of dense neighbourhoods with every amenity at their fingertips. These neighbourhoods tend to be a lot safer as well, and function better.
If you don't like what a city brings to the table, then don't live in one. The days of endless land to expand upon are over. Go far out into the suburbs or countryside, and enjoy your commute. Leave the city for people that actually want to live in one.
They love Arbutus Walk and Paris-Style density, as long as its not replacing their own block of single family homes.
They opposed MIRHPP, SRP, multiplexes, and every individual proposal for a small apartment building if it was near a SFH. Then while the neighbourhood's older SFH's are being gutted and renovated (or completely replaced) by people who can afford the multi-million price tag, they complain that any new multifamily housing *must* be affordable to an 80k family income (and have 3+ bedrooms) because people earning that are getting priced out of the neighbourhood.
People want all the amenities and advantages of living in cities, but they want it to be exclusive to themselves
I'm a big city boy. Born in Montreal, live in Toronto. Love apartment-living and big cities. Just lucky, I guess. . .
I don't like to live in an apartment building but I don't want to ban them, what's wrong with these people?
I a big proponent of two solutions for NIMBYs outside put up or shut up.
One is buying a cabin in the countryside. These can usually be picked up quite cheaply. You’ll get all the fun and games of living in the country and you can still go back to your city on the weekdays. They also provide a great injection of vibrancy into rural areas which might otherwise decline further.
Two: is allotments. There is land in city areas which is too challenging to build on or land which could provide a useful urban lung for a city. This could become allotments, rented to apartment dwellers who want a garden, even a little shed but may not want the long term responsibility or cost of owning urban land.
At the end of the day all urban life is about compromises, as is all rural life or suburban life. As soon as you accept those compromises the sooner you can lobby governments and lawmakers to help deliver better communities within those compromises.
How many Nimbys are just retired people too lazy to move?
Yes. And have the time to complain to city hall during the day while everyone else is working still.
@@Fenthule Exactly
Being on my local subreddit, it's amazing the way Nimbys twist and turn to try and demonize housing density. I do think the tide is shifting slowly, thanks in part to the outrageous cost of housing in general.
Honestly I think a lot of cities would have less high rises if density was everywhere instead of select places, but I guess NIMBYs don't see it that way
You mentioned the thing that grinds my gears the most about NIMBYs - they've never had to seriously, comprehensively, consider the tradeoffs. They envision a set of options that can't coexist, but because they only consider each individually they think they have a grand solution that doesn't require them to make any compromise.
They complain about affordability - "new towera are all luxury condos" - but don't consider how the exclusive zoning and rising prices of their SFHs contribute to the price of condos. The government should build lots of social housing, but they don't consider how much taxes would need to increase to fund that development - and the ongoing subsidies required to house people who still couldn't afford what new social housing costs to be revenue-neutral. They oppose all towers, but wouldn't be willing to allow the same number of homes to be built as lower density apartments either - even if (or especially if) it was replacing expensive SFHs instead of the older "affordable" market rate apartments they want to protect. They love walkable European density, but not on quiet leafy streets of duplexes off arterials - but towers should only be on arterial streets. The city should be more walkable, and have better transit, but new housing must have as much parking as bedrooms.
Dude, nobody is against towers. Nobody is against good transit, livable spaces, 15 minute cities, etc. What they are against is urban shitholes. And it takes shitty people to make shitholes, bad planning being only part of the cause.
Probably my favorite video of yours.
It really is that simple, if you don’t want to live in a city, then don’t. If you do, then accept that other people want to live there for the same reasons you do.
Coming from Taipei and having lived in Toronto for 18 years before moving to western Canada, it’s amazing to me how people in big cities can oppose high rises so vehemently. You enjoy shared amenities and resources, and don’t have to spend so much time and money maintaining your house. Higher density means less urban sprawl, so you don’t have to drive close to an hour to get somewhere. How often do you look out the window and sit in your yard anyway? It’s a privilege. NIMBY is basically saying “I got mine, so who cares if you can’t get yours.”
I'm not a city guy. I've lived in this Ontario town of ~25,000 for the majority of my life, and I like how quiet it can be. I would like it more if driving wasn't the easiest mode of transportation, but the things I need aren't far out of reach, just a few minutes away by car. I could realistically get by without a car, and I did until a few years ago. I'm in favour of diverse housing. I would love if I could just buy a little 1 bedroom house for myself because I'm a musician, I make noise, so living in an apartment wouldn't be a good option, but I also can't afford a regular 3 bedroom home, nor do I need the space. If zoning laws weren't a factor, a ton of small homes could be built if there was no front yard, no/ minimal back yard (perhaps just a shared area for multiple homes), but businesses and green areas throughout that are safely and easily accessible by walking and biking. I would also love for others to have an option that works for them.
Hot fire! I have been thinking for so long, "just live somewhere else" is a comment only ever directed at people who do not already live somewhere.
I love the blunt honesty of this. We need more affordable housing and available land in cities should be used for it. Also ban and bulldoze golf courses in urban areas.
1:28 LOL! I love the choice of yard you chose. EVERYone deserves at least three goats and several chickens.
My Roman Empire is that one time I was talking to an elderly couple in a NIMBY advocacy group opposing the construction of new apartment buildings in my neighbourhood and they had the audacity to tell me they’re “doing it for the younger folk” 😂
I'll argue that tech is not intrinsically connected with living in cities. I've had jobs where I was required to go into an office in order to conduct my work by myself intermixed with meetings with folks in locations across the country or even across the world. When I tried to set up a small group of folks working together in the office on a particular problem, it was killed by requiring holding on-line meetings that included a lot of folks that got to give there opinion and that exercised control, even though they weren't going to do any of the work. Over the last twenty years, teams have gotten larger, in companies that are bigger, with better telecommunications that seniors are allowed to live where they want while others are not allowed the same freedom. When COVID hit, these workplaces adapted to allowing folks to work from home, but a lot of them have since re-implemented policies where you have to show up in a particular location.
1:15 what a beautiful paint job!
Sunday morning upload. Nice.
Fantastic video! Ya'll do a great job!
Its SO simple. Freedom. Build what you want. Live where you want with the environment, people, buildings you want.
We live in constant threat of violence by the state and other people use that to coerce us into not being able to build or live around who and what we prefer.
I was surprised to find that I really liked Seoul SK. 13+ story apartments and condos are the norm there, but at least in the section I was in there was greenery with walking paths, playgrounds, and exercise amenities everywhere between buildings. Buses and trains were fast and cheap. Multiple food and grocery options within a 10 minute walk.
I'd totally live in a city like that in the US.
I say this all the time, we live in one of the fastest growing metro areas of the country AND we have a psuedo-greenbelt. Do we choose crippling unaffordability and making our cities a citadel for the wealthy, or do we stop squishing density and new housing.
I really loved the “Density should be allowed to match the actual demand to live in a place” line - sums it up beautifully.
This is a solid point. I have experienced looking for housing in a city where I found a job and there being none available in the type I wanted: a small condo walking or busing distance from my job and the urban core. I wanted to buy my property, because that was cheaper than renting, but there were literally no condos available. I was forced to buy a house right in the middle of the city because that was the only type of property available for purchase. That is totally weird to me and I think it's part of the problem. I don't plan to own this house for forever, much less advocate against condos being built. This is more space than I want or need, plus I don't like having a yard and needing to do snow removal.
Damn you make some good points! I think the majority of your videos do this, thanks 😊
Great video, thank you!
PREACH
I am literally having an argument with people about apartments versus detached homes right now. My sibling in Christ, if you want a home and a yard then why do you want to live in a CITY?!
Townhomes can provide individual yards while offering medium density. You get energy savings too: as the average townhome has only about 3 sides exposed to the elements.
i'm convinced they're just selfish people who want all the benefits that a city has (jobs, shopping, etc) but all only for themselves, despite the fact that the density is what allows all those benefits to happen... ie have their cake and eat it too, while screwing over everyone else who needs a place to live :/
When you build more apartments on a specific land, you create more livable space which in turns reduce pressure on all other types of housing. So people who wants to move into a single family home, or even a missing middle type of apartment, should still welcome any high density developments as this will make it easier for themselves to get their own housing preferences.
If NIMBYs could think like this, they wouldn't be NIMBYs.
YES! I've been saying this for a long time about Connecticut's rail corridor. Places like Greenwich, Darien, and Stamford are enriched primarily by their direct rail access to NYC. If you have commuter rail to NYC, your property value probably goes up at least 30%. But many of these towns and cities have fought housing tooth and nail -- this is effectively a way to hoard a public resource, the train. I've always suggested reducing train service to towns that refuse to build to meet housing demand, and increase train service to towns that build more than their share. That ensures that (1) the towns that don't want development will have less demand for housing and (2) the towns that do help the housing crisis will have demand shifted to them. This would much more fairly allocating a very expensive public resource (the train). It's an elegant solution that makes everyone happy :-)
Man, wouldn't it be great if NIMBYs actually moved out after some density were added to a neighborhood? One can dream!
Shots fired. I think is the most savage response this channel has ever and will ever make.
I know! It reminds me a bit of another urbanist channel that's notorious for being a bit spicy and sharp-tongued (though not to the same degree of course). I won't mention any names but it definitely focuses on more than just bikes.
@@Nouvellecosse They fired shots at this exact channel on the Montreal video. Won't name names but rhymes with Bot Lust Mikes.
Nailed it!
I love the energy of this video
Another banger! 🎉
i always say this! like i COMPLETELY get that a lot of people don't want to live in a city. some people just hate cities they hate being disturbed and crowds and sometimes even hate having to interact with other people. but they NEED to understand that the solution to that isn't to try to convert the city into the countryside. just live in the countryside. people who want to live in american style car centric suburbs because they hate cities need to accept that that's simply not a sustainable pattern of development in any way and they need to either compromise on being right next to a city or on their house. i'm a big city girl because i grew up in bangkok so i feel comforted by the tall buildings and lots of people and having a cornerstore like every 200 meters and i'm frankly sick of talking to americans who will explain how they're moving to a city but they hate literally everything that makes it a city. bro, just don't fucking move to a city then??? "i wish there were less crowds" IT IS A CITY???????
If you have the energy and time to fight against projects that literally make housing and amenities more accessible and affordable to more people, you have no idea how good you already have it compared to most people.
Thank you for saying this
Increases in traffic is a legitimate concern. I'm against increases in density in car dependent areas. Density needs to be supported by transit and/or walkability.
I think this would just incentivize NIMBYs to oppose walkability, transit and bike lanes
The only way car dependent areas become less car dependent is through density.
It's a bit of a chicken and egg problem, because the density has to be there before there are enough people for transit to make sense.
NIMBYs are just protecting their properties, there are strong and obvious incentives to do that.
Unless we stop regarding houses as properties to build wealth, we gonna stuck in this situation forever.
if their property allowed higher densities, then their property value would skyrocket.
@@TheTroyc1982I hear you, but your forgetting the possibility that people can be straight up hypocrites. A friend of mine had a neighbour militantly fight against his project, while that same person had an even larger home in the same area.
😂 great analogy and excellent points. Thanks for the fresh perspective on the discussion
Very good analogy
love this video. love love love. thank you for being a voice of reason, truly. i can only hope one day the momentum will be enough for change to actually happen on a large enough scale to make a difference. sad that it will probably be after our lifetimes when people will finally get to truly enjoy it, if at all. 😢
also this comment section is bringing me LIFE lmao.
One reason people have a reaction to the buildings like the ones shown in the video is because they look so out of place where they are being built because most neighborhoods have not been allowed to develop incrementally over a longer period of time. So when the housing crisis reaches a tipping point, as it has now, units are going to be built wherever they can built and that is most likely going to be in or next to places that are mostly single family residential. And even taller buildings are going to be concentrated downtown because that is where there is most likely the most land to develop as a result of previously being surface parking or industrial zones. Also, a lot of these buildings are built by large developers rather than small ones, and return on investment is their main priority, thus architecture will mostly be ignored as that will usually make it more expensive.
"Middle aged white woman who doesn't know the name of her neighbour she's lived beside for 12 years says being in close proximity to people is dehumanizing"
So true!!
I live on the edge of London (UK) and my parents live next to a proposed development of 200 houses on what is currently a golf course on greenbelt land. They are full on NIMBYs about it and pretty much all development in the area. I've tried to argue with them that area needs more homes because prices are too high. So much so that I am living with them currently because I can't afford a place of my own. Their response is that the demand is fake because the government keeps encouraging immigration and they should be building more homes up north in other cities, not in London. I do half see their point, but what struck me the other day is that my parents live where they do because they wanted access to the London job market (my Dad was a commuter before he retired) and they didn't move away after retiring. They're just happy where they are. So they are basically saying (although they won't admit it) "we were here first, so we get first dibs on what happens here and we don't want anyone else to enjoy what we have because it will make our view worse and increase traffic". I don't have the heart to argue with them that they should move away to somewhere quieter, because they're turning 80 this year and probably won't be around for too many more years.
It's funny when you see the comments that apartments are only for the poor and if you had the money no one would choose to live in them.. right beside the comments saying, all apartments being built today are luxury apartments normal people can't afford. So do people want them? Rich people like them? or what?
I basically agree with this sentiment but I also sympathize with people whose occupations practically require them to live in a city (that is, I sympathize with those who have to but don't want to live in a city).
wow 👏 you guys got all the right words
I wasn't told to bike and subscribe, so I really don't know what to do with myself now. 😅
Great video as always. Seeing opposition to new developments reminds me how easyily a vocal minority can effect change. So let's flip that and YIMBY the hell out of it.
As someone who is advocating for more density in a regional town, :(
I live in Toronto but live 3 kilometres from the next suburban town of Vaughan with low density. I am lucky as a cyclist. i will not recreate in the city but take the subway out to the city of Vaughan to bike and the GO train (intercity train) out to the rural areas with farms and quiet streets. I have the best of both worlds and enjoy condo living in the city.
Great video! Very clear and unpretentious.
"I got mine! How dare you want some cake too?"
thank you
great video
What I have found is that there is a sweet spot for density. Too little is a problem, but so is too much.
A lot depends on access to green spaces and the amount of greenery. If you have a lot of density, every surface has to be concrete or hard, which isn't very nice. But importantly, we have to think of climate change and building really tall is bad.
All the best, most liveable cities I have been to are medium density. As you get the best of both worlds. Cities like Hong Kong are just exhausting to live in.
I think a big issue a lot of people have with modern development is how ugly it is. If new buildings were built with traditional building styles and had a focus of adding beauty to a space you would have a lot fewer complains
Some guy from rural austria here.
We are actually pretty proud about our towers here. Shure, they are not for people to live in, but grain storage, but people generally love them. And you certainly won't find anyone who even gets the idea that their presence ruins anything.
It sure is surprising when “locals” 40 kms away join the local concern groups to protest against positive development. It would be odd if certain of them were to be funded by lobbyists.
I have been INCREDIBLY LUCKY my entire life to live in LOW DENSITY suburbs (two different houses/locations)
But I have known even intuitively as a kid this lifestyle is UNSUSTAINABLE. Especially car/oil addiction.
So we need to build as many TRAINS and TRAMS to low density suburbs
1:53 The problem is that too many people want the benefits of a small town AND a big city. They want the awkward attempt called the suburbs. Additionally, they want city dwellers to pay for their “privilege”.