To give
myself a respite from my flailing attempt to write a personal “Intro to
Urbanism”, I’ll jump across the Atlantic Ocean and check out another episode of
the BBC show “The Planners”, along with another couple of videos more or less
pertinent to urbanism.
One aspect I
love about British television is that the producers and directors don’t feel compelled
to drive a point home. They’re content
to offer a vignette or two, leaving it to the discerning viewer to connect the dots. It’s a lesson from which I could learn
something for my own writing.
Thus, in episode six of season one, “The Planners”
covers several land-use planning controversies in which NIMBYism plays a key
role, without once pointing out the mirror images between two of the
storylines. (I’m probably being overly pedantic
here, but I guess I should explain that NIMBY is an acronym for Not In My
Backyard and refers to people who only participate in the land-use process when
they fear that their own ox is about to be gored.)
In one storyline,
neighbors, who themselves live in single-family homes recently built on former
greenfields, argue against further single-family homes in the adjoining
greenfields. To offer an alternative,
they identify an abandoned site in the village center, arguing that the
community would be best served by putting new homes closer to existing density.
In another storyline,
located elsewhere, neighbors, who live in urban flats, complain that student
apartments proposed for the underused commercial site next door should go elsewhere
because their neighborhood is already dense enough. (Plus they suspect that students wouldn’t be
good neighbors.)
So the folks
who live in suburbs argue that growth should happen downtown and the folks who
live downtown argue that growth should occur in the suburbs. It’s typical of the illogic that results when
NIMBYs get involved.
From years
of working in the land-use field, I have a split perspective toward NIMBYs. On one hand, I support the principle of
everyone having a say in land-use decisions.
I don’t think that single-issue democracy is a good strategy for land
use, but the adoption of community land-use standards followed by a broad and
inclusive discussion of whether a particular project conforms to those
standards is a fine approach.
But NIMBYs
often make arguments that are irritating and unhelpful to either their own case
or the overall process. Rather than admitting
the truth that is obvious to all, that they’re involved only because they have
a personal interest in the particular decision, they try to invoke broad standards,
usually in a way that is laughably wrong.
An example
from the greenfield storyline is the neighbor who argues that approval would
set a precedent that would inevitably result in numerous other parcels also
being developed. He’s forgetting that he
lives in a relatively new home in a former greenfield. If precedent were an inviolable principle,
then his own home would have set the precedent and he wouldn’t have any
opportunity to comment on the current proposal.
So invoking a concern about precedent only shows his naiveté.
But the BBC,
in their understated British style, doesn’t make this point, instead leaving it
to the viewer to connect the dots.
The episode
contains two other storylines. The first
also pivots on NIMBYism as neighbors argue that a final proposal for a zoo
expansion is sufficiently different from the earlier plan that the earlier
preliminary approval should be overturned and the process started anew from the
beginning.
Unfortunately,
the point is one of English planning law that those of us on this side of the Atlantic
can’t judge. However, it was ironic to
watch a zoo struggle with the English equivalent of an endangered species act.
The final
storyline was about a grand old 18,000 square foot estate house with a
historical designation that had been largely surrounded by the town. The result of the encircling growth was that
there were no buyers at a price that would allow the owner to avoid
foreclosure. At least that was the
position that the owner was taking.
The owner’s proposed
solution was to divide the existing home into flats and to add several new
homes on the remainder of the estate grounds.
Although compliance with the historical preservation standards for the existing
home would be expensive, the profit on the new homes would allow the overall
project to proceed. Overall, it seemed a
fine solution, following a nearby precedent where an old army barracks had
undergone a similar transformation.
However, the
plan required the approval of the local historic preservation officer, who has
appeared several times previously in “The Planners”, always with a strict,
non-problem-solving approach. Once again,
he took the hard line, denying the conversion to flats and perhaps leaving the
property closer to foreclosure. Not
having more than a few minutes of familiarity with the situation, it’s hard to know
if the historic preservation officer was wrong in this case, but he strikes me as
someone who is overly enamored with his authority.
As always, “The
Planners” offers intriguing and nuanced looks at the world of land-use
planning. At least to us land-use geeks,
it’s always a joy to watch an episode.
As long as we’re
viewing videos, allow me to offer another couple of links.
If one
considers parallel parking to be an essential skill in an urban setting, then
the setting of a new world record for parking with the smallest
bumper-to-bumper gaps would seem to be an urban sport. Check out this video
of the new record-holder doing the Tokyo drift with barely more than three
inches to spare.
The video
raises four questions. Is parallel
parking truly a spectator sport in Japan?
How come we don’t get to see the failed attempts at the world
record? Are the failed attempts the
reason that parallel parking is a Japanese spectator sport? And lastly, who has the contract for the auto
body work that must go along with the failed attempts?
Finally,
check out this video of a walk/don’t walk sign with
dancing figures. Using a temporary motion-sensing
video studio, the dance moves of volunteer pedestrians are shown real-time in
place of the standard walk/don’t walk figures.
It’s a fun
and compelling video. If the technology
were to come to an intersection near me, I could settle on a bench and watch
for hours. It’s absolutely unscalable to
the real world as ennui would soon result, but that’s okay. Sometimes the most fun comes from one-off
ideas.
Next up, I’ll
return to my Intro to Urbanism, buttoning up my arguments on fiscal urbanism.
As always,
your questions or comments will be appreciated.
Please comment below or email me.
And thanks for reading. - Dave Alden (davealden53@comcast.net)
No comments:
Post a Comment