PDA

View Full Version : Why do NIMBY's exist in NY?



Agglomeration
June 19th, 2003, 05:28 PM
From my examination of these NIMBY's and TEDAO's, I have found several categories of these uncompromising tall-building haters. They are part of the reason why the WTC rebuilding program is such a mess and why the developers, including Silverstein, are hardly listening to the public too much:

1. Nostalgic old ladies. They are old hags with too much time on their hands who are terrified of change, either to their neighborhoods or even to the rest of their city. and wish to go back to the bad old days of suburban expansion and half-empty buildings and eerily quiet side streets. Not surprisingly they regard Robert Moses as New York's Epitome of Evil. Some of them even spewed hate at Libeskind during a meeting, saying that the Freedom tower was too tall. :angry:

2. Socialist activists. They regard any form of building development as capitalist evil and exploitation of the working class, namely construction hard-hats, and as a potential environmental hazard. Some of these socialist utopians want all of New York to be demolished and remade into a clone of low-rise Paris, namely in the name of urban harmony and happiness (Riiiight. )

3. Homeless bums and those who support them. They are terrified of anyone coming into their smelly and dilapidated crack houses and either demolishing or renovating the property. Similar are low-class families who are terrified of joining their ranks and are often heard to threaten to immolate themselves (that's sarcasm) if their ghetto houses or apartments are condemned. Enough said. *

4. Suburban politicians. By this I mean politicians from spread-out houses and even rural areas. Many want to emulate the idyllic lifestyle back in their ranch houses or colonial houses alongside quiet tree-lined side streets, and pander to those who share the same. They seldom venture out beyond the quiet isolated houses or office parks they usually work in. Westchester-born George Pataki is one, and some LMDC members also fit the category . *

5. Brownstone fanatics. A more grating name I made up to describe preservationists who want to preserve tenements, often whole rows of them, and unused factory buildings, for posterity, even they're crack houses or burned-out hulks. They claim that these tenements have historical importance and should be landmarked. Historical importance for what? *

6. New: Mega-memorialists. Monica Iken and the like would easily flatten all of Lower Manhattan if they could. They were furious at Libeskind'd decision to raise the pit to 30 feet in order to accomodate a train station, and some of them (inc. Sally Blowhard) openly want all buildings to not exceed 10 floors 'or as high as a fireman can go up'. * I half-expect them to call for the demolition of the ESB, the Chrysler, Citicorp, and the Times Square Towers because they're potential 'deathtraps'.

7. Noise pollution zealots. They could fit into any category, but generally they're determined to turn their neighborhood, and perhaps the whole city, into a quiet idyllic boring almost you-can-hear-the-bird-singing type of community that one finds in Levittown or elsewhere.

There are more categories but these are the biggies I can think of. I invite my fellow skyscraper fans to give out more categories and more descriptions. *


(Edited by Agglomeration at 5:29 pm on June 19, 2003)


(Edited by Agglomeration at 12:03 am on June 22, 2003)

Schadenfrau
June 19th, 2003, 06:08 PM
You forgot perhaps the most important one: property owners. They don't want to see anything that might lower their property value.

dbhstockton
June 19th, 2003, 06:54 PM
Say what you will, but don't knock property-owners as a group. *It's a very ignorant thing to do.

ablarc
June 19th, 2003, 07:48 PM
NIMBYs seem to be the subject of the moment on this Forum. See also the latest posts in the East River Plaza Mall thread in New York Real Estate. Many of the same points. Maybe that stuff should be moved to this thread, Mr. Moderator?

Kris
June 19th, 2003, 08:55 PM
Ablarc's "essay":

What a NIMBY believes:


1. All change is for the worse.
Developers propose change.
Clearly therefore, a developer's mission is to harm the world.

This is done through environmental degradation, which is an integral part of every development project.

Therefore, THE BEST PROJECT IS NO PROJECT.


2. More people, anywhere, anytime, are a bad thing:
more people on Earth, more people in the City, more people in the Neighborhood.

How do you reduce the number of people?
Don't know about the Earth or the City, but in my nice Neighborhood, we just keep them out.

If you don't build it, they won't come.

Therefore, THE BEST DEVELOPMENT IS NO DEVELOPMENT.


3. All developers are unscrupulous and greedy.
That they propose to build anything at all is prima facie evidence of unscrupulousnes.
That they seek to earn a profit doing so is evidence of their greed.

Building is immoral and profit is dirty.
The fact that politicians often approve projects shows that they are crooked and in bed with developers.

THE ONLY REALLY MORAL THING TO BUILD IS NOTHING.


4. A building project's depravity is directly proportional to its size in general and its height in particular.
A shorter building is always a better building.
The best building is the shortest building.

THE SHORTEST AND BEST BUILDING IS NO BUILDING.


5. Environmentally, the world has been going to hell in a handbasket, perhaps since Adam.
He was the last person to live in a really decent environment.
Therefore, vegetation is always preferable to the works of man. A park is always better than a building.

The City, after all, is merely a failed suburb.
But if you drive wedges of vegetation into the city, it will eventually evolve into Suburbia.

THE BEST CITY IS NO CITY.


6. All good things have already been built.
This is a wicked world, and sometimes we cannot altogether prevent all new building.
In such cases, however, we can insist that what is built should copy its surroundings, only smaller.

If we must suffer new buildings, let them at least look like the ones we already have.

THE ONLY TOLERABLE NEW BUILDING IS ONE THAT LOOKS LIKE AN OLD BUILDING.

Like the one I live in.

DominicanoNYC
June 19th, 2003, 10:27 PM
They're here to protect invaluable places which they think are very important. Maybe thier first goal was to protect true landmarks but now have developed a bad trend of protecting any old building.

Schadenfrau
June 20th, 2003, 10:22 AM
It's pretty ignorant to knock nostalgic old ladies as a group, as well. I don't think that either Agglomeration or I meant to generalize.

The specific case I had in mind involved that whole mess with Woody Allen and the proposed residential building on Carnegie Hill.

TLOZ Link5
June 20th, 2003, 06:39 PM
All this "tall buildings are deathtraps" nonsense...the public ought to be informed about innovations in skyscraper safety elsewhere in the world, particularly Asia. *The WTC was not the epitome of safety standards today, and anti-high rise sensationalists are blind to the fact that such tall buildings can and will be safer.

One of these days I ought to write the Department of Buildings in regards to that.

DominicanoNYC
June 20th, 2003, 10:18 PM
I agree. The DoB is being irresponsible by not taking advanage of the great stratagey that the Asian are using right now.

Agglomeration
June 20th, 2003, 10:28 PM
The WTC Twin Towers met pretty high safety standards for their time. Tall skyscrapers always had to abide by basic safety standards for the time when they were built; after all, developers and architects are not stupid. Of course, saferty standards have been tightened quite a bit since then, and the Twins were in the process of upgrading their fire protections and safety measures before 9-11. Whatever buildings are built in NYC in the future can be made safer and stronger, no matter how tall they are.

And if you want the NY Buildings Department, here's their site:

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dob/home.html

(Edited by Agglomeration at 10:29 pm on June 20, 2003)

TLOZ Link5
June 21st, 2003, 02:34 PM
Thanks, Agglom.

Jack Ryan
June 21st, 2003, 07:37 PM
I'm partial to GUMBYS myself.

enzo
June 22nd, 2003, 01:58 AM
BANANA.....

(B)uild (A)bsolutely (N)othing (A)nywhere (N)ear (A)nything

;)

Agglomeration
June 22nd, 2003, 11:17 PM
TEDAO- Tear Everything Down At Once. It's a term I invented myself. Let's hope this term doesn't apply anywhere beyond Deutsche Bank near Ground Zero.

What does GUMBY stand for?

(Edited by Agglomeration at 11:17 pm on June 22, 2003)

alex ballard
June 9th, 2005, 02:11 PM
Hey, sorry for bringing this thread back from the dust but it seems from what you described, many people think being rich/making a profit/priavte enterprise is evil. Why would people think that? Why do certain people not want more people in their meighborhood, when they can always move out?

In fact, why don't these people move out? And is there anything we can do to crush them, like extra taxes or ignoring them?

kz1000ps
June 11th, 2005, 12:06 PM
Hi Alex, I've dissented to you before, so I'll explain my personal beef with "capitalism," or more the state of capitalism and its effects. I resent the cut-throat nature in that you MUST stay on the cutting edge every second and there's no room for variance or worrying about who you might toss aside to reach the goal, to me that's not a healthy, BALANCED environment. It's natural for things to ebb and flow, not keep rising rising rising.

Along that line, I attend/am of college age, and I can attest that every other word out of kids' mouths now consist of, "like" "f***" or "pu***/di**." I just roll my eyes and keep my mouth shut when I meet yet another person who sounds like all they do is watch MTV. I ask, "is the decay of morals/values/basic intelligence worth the money made? When will someone tell them 'ok no more you've gone to far' ?" Going by precedent, I know the answers and it scares me. This is not to say MTV is the Anti Christ, there's many factors at work on that particular issue, but things still resolves back to the fact that someone somewhere thinks this is a good idea. I ask how so?

Getting back to NIMBYism, I personally don't have any stance either way, it's situation specific, but we all know just packing up and leaving is not an easy task. Yes if you're in New York you should expect growth (even in Brooklyn), but what can you say when you find an area that has that feel you love? Of course you're not gonna want to see it change. too bad emotional resonance doesn't exactly give you legal rights...oh well.

And Alex, "crushing" all NIMBY's out of an area is, umm, well uh, not a terribly constructive though.

BrooklynRider
June 12th, 2005, 03:03 AM
Hey, sorry for bringing this thread back from the dust but it seems from what you described, many people think being rich/making a profit/priavte enterprise is evil. Why would people think that? Why do certain people not want more people in their meighborhood, when they can always move out?

In fact, why don't these people move out? And is there anything we can do to crush them, like extra taxes or ignoring them?

Alex, a lot of folks seem to get aggravated with your posts, but I find you ask some interesing questions. (OK, you still need to learn how to use "quote", but I think you're an astute guy with a different perspective or, at least, unpulluted filter).

Anyway, interesting, if not entirely sensitive question. I'll pass and look forward to responses.

Fabrizio
June 12th, 2005, 06:57 AM
Thank God for those who have protected Manhattan from unscrupulous development. Imagine the city with no Village (or at least a very scaled down version), no SoHo... no Tribeca.

There will be extremists on all sides... the solution is somewhere in the middle.

Jasonik
December 4th, 2008, 01:56 PM
As Development Slows, Plea For Cash To Finish Anti-Development Film

BY ELIOT BROWN | 5:17 PM DECEMBER 3, 2008 (http://www.observer.com/2008/real-estate/development-slows-plea-money-finish-anti-development-film)

Thought we’d pass along an email we just got from the producers of a planned documentary on gentrification, Vanishing New York (http://www.vanishingny.org/).

Perhaps the collapse of the development boom is hurting the anti-development movements citywide: The filmmakers are running low on cash to finish the production, and they kindly remind potential donors to remember that overdevelopment will return!

“This development has only paused for a moment in this recession. Their [developers’] plans to convert so much of this city into luxury high-rises will continue as soon as the markets free up. We still need to act swiftly and work together. … We need your support to finish this doc and get the word out before it's too late. You can help with a tax-deductible donation of $10, $25, $50 or more.”
Full e-mail below.

Hey,

You may have heard about our non-profit documentary “VANISHING NEW YORK which exposes the forces behind the out-of-control overdevelopment that’s been going on in our city.

This development has only paused for a moment in this recession. Their plans to convert so much of this city into luxury high-rises will continue as soon as the markets free up. We still need to act swiftly and work together.

Please visit our website www.vanishingny.org to see our clip and get an idea of what we are doing. You can also check it out on YouTube: www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHVqE6bIvaE

We are in the editing phase and we need your support to finish this doc and get the word out before it's too late. You can help with a tax-deductible donation of $10, $25, $50 or more. (For a donation of $100 or more you will get a credit in the movie!)

To donate online just go to our fiscal sponsor's site: www.fracturedatlas.org/site/contribute/donate, or send a check made out to Fractured Atlas (with “Vanishing New York” written in the memo line) to the address below. Our immediate goal is to raise $8,000 by January.

With your donation, you are helping all of us who love this wonderful city so much to save the rich diversity of our local neighborhoods and shops by bringing to light what is happening and how.

Thank you so much,

Fiore DeRosa and Jen Senko

JSenko Productions
2 King St., #2B
New York, NY 10012

Ninjahedge
December 4th, 2008, 02:12 PM
Let me get this striat.

The people who are making an anti-development film are asking for money because the recession is strapping them for funds and even though development has slowed, they say it will come back and therefore they need to complete their movie?

It is a BIT ironic. The very recession that hinders their production, does what they wanted to do! It stopped (for a time) the Gentrification of NYC.

Here's the ironic bit. The only way they had enough money to do this was when there was enough money to make it an issue......