The OP is correct. In the real world, bad faith NIMBYs will reject any and all buildings as ‘not beautiful enough’. The reason is that they really don’t want new construction period. It’s not about beauty. In other words, you’re the one living in the fantasy world if you think we can just sit down, decide on what is beautiful, and then build, build, build. This will never happen. Zoning must be majorly reformed, and if you think it will be easier to reform zoning if we incorporate aesthetic standards, you are wrong. People simply don’t want new buildings in their neighborhood.
You fall into the same trap that so many people do, which is arguing against the most extreme version of your opponent instead of trying to build a coalition against them by winning over the much larger, much less extreme portions of the opposition.
We can de-fang the most extreme by weakening zoning and we ought to build a broad pro-development consensus by building fantastic environments (which is absolutely, demonstrably possible to do in a cost-effective manner).
To put it more directly: we need to politically disempower the bad faith NIMBYs via zoning reform and we need to win over the people who are (justifiably) tired of their built environment becoming more and more insulting to the human senses and local culture.
Extremely sad how paralyzed you’ll be in agitating for change with this fatalistic “the presence of extremists means I don’t need to win over moderates” attitude.
Oh hush. You’re the barking up the wrong tree with this ‘beautiful housing’ thing.
If we want to reform zoning, it’s not going to be by winning over NIMBYs about beauty standards. The way to reform zoning is to win over younger, upwardly mobile folks who are currently priced out of the housing market. There are many, many of them. They need to be educated that too little construction leads to supply shortages, and thus high prices. We also stand a chance of winning over labor/blue collar workers who will benefit from plentiful construction. Business owners, both small and large, are also natural allies as high home prices make it difficult to find and keep employees. All these people care about something much nearer and dearer to their hearts than pretty architecture: MONEY.
The focus on aesthetics is a distraction at best. In practice, it plays straight into NIMBY hands by granting that beauty standards is a hurdle that must be overcome in order to build.
Yes I am aware that new development/upzoning often increases nearby land values while at the same time putting downward pressure on market rents. See Mast et al’s work from the Upjohn Institute. I am very aware that homeowners (at least those that outright own the land underneath their house i.e not condo owners) stand to financially benefit by selling to developers who put in higher density housing. My remarks about money were not directed at them. Existing homeowners simply oppose new housing of all sorts. Please reread.
Look, I live in Boston. I have also lived in Rittenhouse square. I know the buildings you speak of intimately. I suggest you do something that I have personally have done several times: go to local city council meeting about a beautiful new housing development proposal. Observe how vehemently neighbors oppose the construction of this gorgeous new multifamily housing development. They complain about parking, too much traffic, too much noise, a burden on the school system, the wrong sort of people, blah, blah, blah… it never ends. These people simply don’t want new homes near them. See Katherine Einstein’s “Neighborhood Defenders” to get an overview of this phenomena.
As I said, your focus on aesthetics is a distraction. The road forward is either to appeal to the personal economic interests of the three groups I mentioned, or pray the SCOTUS overturns Euclid vs. Ambler.
Are you deliberately ignoring the content of my comments?
I am not denying that these people exist and they hold outsized power. I am claiming that we need to build a coalition to defeat them, and that is impossible to achieve when we keep building hideous bullshit. The people we actually need to activate are the vast majority of people who have no equity stake in their neighborhoods but have significant stake in the lifestyle their neighborhoods support.
Appealing to the personal economic interests of those three groups has demonstrably not worked. The masses (with no equity stakes) are more easily mobilized by NIMBYs/landed interests against big evil developers because big "evil" developers visibly degrade neighborhoods.
The non-equity-growth argument for more development is totally nonexistent, so non-equity holders (again the vast majority of people in high COL areas) have zero motivation to join your side.
+1 on overturning Euclid, but I don't see a path to that.
Seems to me you’ve perfectly illustrated my point.
“The most extreme people go to planning meetings and successfully overrule several aligned interests against them, but no we don’t need a broader coalition.”
You don’t need to convince the people at the planning meetings. You need to convince the people who are not at the planning meetings.
Anyway, excellent work over the last two decades, I guess.
