Comments on YIMBYism in Wheaton - Greater Greater Washington

Comment by Cavan

Tue, 14 Oct 2008 14:42:39 EDT

Out of respect for David's wishes on his blog, I will avoid using that term in this space in the future.

Comment by Cavan

Tue, 14 Oct 2008 14:40:18 EDT

Ouch. I wrote that piece. I don't throw out the word "NIMBY" for anyone who disagrees with me. You can see my definition in my above comments on this thread. This post was about a my town's enthusiasm for new walkable development. This was not meant to deride anyone. My post was meant to have a positive tone to it, not deride someone else. I don't live in a historical overlayed zone. I live in a slowly reviving old walkable town that has a Metro station. And, I'm in favor of all that development coming close to my house. I want to be able to walk to everything. The section about raising the hackles of a NIMBY faction is from my real life experience with planning meetings. Every one I've been to has had a majority who want to see the shiny new amenities that are in walking distance of the Metro with a sizable minority who hate everything and are constantly changing the reasons why. There are concerns that I understand. However, when I have very calmly used real life examples of why that concern is unfounded the response I get is a different, often contradictory reply. That kind of made me wonder why someone would oppose something using contradictory reasons. I wanted to know what such a motivation is. I did not think I was talking to an unintelligent person. Then why? I use the term "NIMBY" as a description for that kind of behavior. No one on this blog wants to ruin someone else's neighborhood. I think the lessons of the '50s and '60s have shown the overwhelming negatives of that kind of approach.

Comment by David Alpert

Tue, 14 Oct 2008 14:30:46 EDT

Wow, this thread is really bringing out the vitriol against me. Peter: I wasn't, or at least didn't mean to be, dismissive of Kim's problems with the NIMBY term. However, Kim was claiming that I've been writing about projects I know nothing about, without ever saying how and why I was wrong. I'm always happy to have people tell me why I'm wrong, and sometimes I change my mind. But just to say, I'm wrong because other people know better doesn't add anything to the debate. This seems like Nixon's secret plan to get out of Vietnam. I don't accept an argument that says, trust those who've lived here longer, they know what they're talking about and you don't, but we won't deign to say why. Anyway, I've stopped using the NIMBY term, but didn't want to edit it out of this post. Though maybe I should have. I see that it raises a higher level of emotional reaction than the underlying point would warrant; it seems to lead to some people assuming that, because I called certain development NIMBYish, I must advocate for tearing everything down willy-nilly. W.A.T.N.: Define "massive increases", please. At Takoma, for example, they want to build single-family townhouses. I've consistently advocated for more townhouse neighborhoods. Furthermore, it's never come up here, but I think there are definitely buildings on 17th Street that should be bigger. For example, the 3-story mid-century brick building at 17th and Q that holds Trio could be a taller building of comparable height to the apartment buildings across the street. A good neighborhood is a mix of densities. And saying I want suburban-style form-based codes makes no sense, seeing as I keep railing against suburban-style form-based codes. Anyway, I think this thread should end. I have come to agree with those that say the term NIMBY is too pejorative and should be avoided. (See? Disagreement is good.) Therefore, I'm not going to use it any more, whether to describe people who just oppose any development outright or to describe people who support development but only in other people's neighborhoods.

Comment by Where are the NIMBYs?

Tue, 14 Oct 2008 14:12:21 EDT

“I personally interpret NIMBYism to be those who argue we need a particular type of development, but that it should go in someone else's neighborhood.“ Let’s see, GGW has advocated massive increases in heights and density in many neighborhoods throughout the Washington area, dismissing real concerns of residents of those neighborhoods as NIMBYism, but where did GGW buy a house? In a neighborhood that several has layers of protection against large increases in height and density: in a moderate density residential zone in a historic district with a zoning overlay that has a strict cap on the heights and densities allowed -- even with a planned unit development. IMHO, these protections are very appropriate for GGW’s neighborhood, but are also very appropriate for the many other neighborhoods where GGW advocates massive increases in height and density, far beyond that which is appropriate to those areas. Looking at the many, many times that the term NIMBY has been used in this blog, it seems that in nearly every instance it is used as a pejorative and to dismiss real concerns that GGW does not understand, or did not make the effort to even hear/read, and to stereotype anyone who does not agree with GGW’s vision of urban renewal, to replace the existing real urban neighborhoods that have developed over time with cookie-cutter mixed use developments following suburban-style form-based codes.

Comment by Peter

Tue, 14 Oct 2008 11:03:30 EDT

@David Alpert, et al., I read through that last post, and immediately latched onto Kim's first comment - which made perfect sense to me. I was actually surprised to see you, David, so dismissive of it. But, that's up to you. If you've always used the term NIMBY in exactly and only those cases that deserved it (and none of us commenters would know your project details, of course - an impossible request of Kim on your part), then I don't have a problem with it. I might disagree on whether that was appropriate strategy, but that's about it. I also figured out why NIMBY has a negative connotation - why it could even be used as a pejorative term. There is, of course, all the surrounding negative implications of that term - backwardness, provincialism, etc. - but the key is 'hypocrisy'. If you label someone NIMBY, you are calling them a hypocrite. If it's true, and you want that battle, go for it - do your thing, and have fun fighting it out in front of your town council. But if it's not true, then you shouldn't go for it - it's not fair, and it makes my life more difficult as I try to convince people that smart development is the path to all that is good. More notes: * Huge developments are not necessary. Build smaller, high-density developments. Lower profits? Too bad. * If developers actually cared about good community relations, they would practice them by going to neighborhood groups first. They should even sign legally-binding MoUs. * People who live somewhere are concerned about their quality of life and the culture of their neighborhoods, and they have that right. Culture is important. If they don't care to participate in the 'economic development' of their neighborhood, then they should be able to object on any number of grounds, none, some, or all of which may be valid - and they may have nothing to do with our beloved 'density'. The NIMBYs in New London, Connecticut, for instance, didn't get the memo. [It'd be helpful to have permalinks to comments. They're already there - you just need to drop in a character.] That is all.

Comment by Cavan

Tue, 14 Oct 2008 10:04:21 EDT

I won't hold my breath for redeveloping the mall into a walkable urban place in the immediate future. Westfield Wheaton was bought and completely gutted and renovated in 2004. I don't see the current ownership turning around and spending more money on construction just yet. It would seem that it's there for at least 25 more years. Maybe when the structure starts to be in need of either being torn down or refurbished they'll take that route. I completely agree with you about the big roads. I don't think they kill walkability, though. Drivers slow down when the buildings come up to the sidewalk rather than being set back behind parking. The activity tells them they need to be cautious. The new buildings, specifically on University between Georgia and Viers Mill come up to the sidewalk in an urban manner. To me, that's the low hanging fruit of the pedestrian safety issue. We need to get urban forms into the Sector Plan so there is more activity on the sidewalk. Drivers will then slow down. Also, once there is more activity, it will be easier to argue in the future for further traffic/pedestrian safety measures.

Comment by Dave Murphy

Tue, 14 Oct 2008 03:07:47 EDT

Great post. I went to high school in Wheaton, and I've enjoyed watching it improve over the years (not the least of the improvements was the relocation of my old high school!) However, What I find to be the biggest deterrant to real walkability is a problem also faced in Silver Spring: 6 lane high traffic roads bisecting the city. I know some improvements have been made in the last 10 years, but risking my life crossing University Boulevard, Georgia Avenue, and Viers Mill Road is one of my most vivid memories of high school. Of course, traffic may be too high in the town to call for removal of a lane in each direction on those roads. Perhaps more street parking during non-rush hour along with some median trees (So long as Leggett doesn't block them). But improving those streetscapes would be my #1 issue for increasing density in Wheaton. Also, are there any plans to turn the mall into a mixed use set-up like they're (allegedly) trying to do in Laurel and a couple other places? That might improve density and walkability as well as connectivity to Kensington and other neighboring towns.

Comment by Lance

Mon, 13 Oct 2008 23:15:26 EDT

Not In My Back Yard i s m

Comment by Lance

Mon, 13 Oct 2008 23:13:25 EDT

NIMBYs are like the people who complain about pedestrians walking against the light ... when traffic is present and they are in a car ... And then later that same day walk against the light themselves ... all the while complaining about how traffic should slow down "because pedestrians always have the right of way! We've all seen them! (they're oftentimes are best friends, neighbors, and relatives!)

Comment by Cavan

Mon, 13 Oct 2008 20:05:37 EDT

Dan, It's not so much that we have a higher tolerance for traffic. After all, no one like having someone else's commuters on a six lane road in your backyard every day. It's more that people saw that Silver Spring (and Bethesda) were developed/redeveloped in a walkable manner and traffic really didn't increase. Another big kicker is that a lot of people who go to Silver Spring use the Metro. Finally, one thing that Wheaton has is plenty of empty garages. There is actually too much parking currently. The final factor, in my opinion, is that people are now seeing Metro stations as centers. The success across the region of having Metro stations as centers of (walkable) activity has gone from being a novel idea to being something closer to an expectation.

Comment by David Alpert

Mon, 13 Oct 2008 19:33:57 EDT

Based on the last time this came up, I personally interpret NIMBYism to be those who argue we need a particular type of development, but that it should go in someone else's neighborhood. Those who say, build a highway, but not here, are NIMBYs. Those who say, we understand the need for more affordable housing, but put it elsewhere, are NIMBYs. People who, say, want to keep DC car-oriented and somewhat suburban, and believe in other areas being suburban too, aren't NIMBYs, nor are people who like highways everywhere, because they are not advocating for something different for their own area versus other areas.

Comment by jfruh

Mon, 13 Oct 2008 19:29:52 EDT

It isn't that all opposition to development is bad; it's that opposition to all development is bad, if you follow me. I also think you're going to find that, almost by definition, if an urban design blog is discussing some project, it's a project that the author approves of. Therefore obviously in his or her opinion those who oppose it are misguided. There's a certain selection bias at work -- if the author thinks that opposing the development is a good idea, the development (and its opponents) is less likely to be discussed.

Comment by dan reed

Mon, 13 Oct 2008 19:28:57 EDT

Wheaton's had to wait a while, but because they got to see the successes and failures of Bethesda, Silver Spring and Rockville, they know what they want and how to get it. And with a regional mall in their backyard, I can imagine that Wheaton residents probably have a higher tolerance for traffic and people than someone in Brookland and Takoma Park. I'm looking forward to what Wheaton can accomplish with so much existing support for new development.

Comment by Cavan

Mon, 13 Oct 2008 19:04:40 EDT

While it is important to be opposed to bad change, the NIMBY term is meant for those who oppose change just because it's change. I personally don't throw it out there until I have seen evidence of many shifting reasons for why something shouldn't be done, or just throwing all kinds of (often contradictory) reasons up against a wall and hoping that something sticks. It's the motivation. Is the person motivated by making sure that the change is good, or are they motivated by stonewalling all change, both good and bad and protecting their own self perception of the exclusivity of their neighborhood?

Comment by Peter

Mon, 13 Oct 2008 18:41:18 EDT

i'm curious about the 'NIMBY' expression. i'm still pretty new to this game, but it seems like NIMBY means 'anyone who is against any development proposal'. and the proposal, of course, is perfect and makes perfect sense for everyone involved because it has, in fact, been proposed, and therefore it must make perfect sense. i don't buy it. the 'NIMBY' term never needs qualification. the human entities and their ideas being described by the term aren't deserving of actual attention - they're just NIMBYs, after all. dead-enders. 30%ers. haters. whatever. the specifics of this particular situation - i have no idea about, but generally speaking, my experience with neighborhood groups is that they have something important to say. they have an expertise that outsiders lack. sure, they may be scared, and/or ignorant, and/or racists, but maybe they have valid concerns, too. take a cruise around the urban design blogs and you'll see the acronym/slander 'NIMBY' employed several times in a single article. you might end up with the impression that the entire world is filled with self-centered, ignorant people who are unable to read or comprehend the course that their more intelligent urban planner masters have set out for them. the do-gooder capitalist developers are constantly thwarted by those scrappy, degenerate, lawsuit-filing NIMBYs, dagnabbit. why won't they just mind their own business and stop meddling? not to pick on your first post - it's just something i've been thinking about for a while, now, and your post finally made me want to address it. the term seems unnecessarily confrontational and disrespectful, and just plain tawdry. are we trying to make enemies with people or do we want more and better good urban design advocates out there - whether they have a piece of paper or not? and maybe i take it all a bit personally because i'm a NIMBY - just in my own neighborhood, though, which is all of planet earth. :)