PDA

View Full Version : What's a NIMBY?



jack
March 16th, 2003, 11:03 PM
Forgive me for my naivete but could someone define NYMBIE for me.

Gulcrapek
March 16th, 2003, 11:11 PM
NIMBY

Not In My Backyard

Residents of an area opposed to new development

Rem 311 JHF
June 6th, 2005, 03:51 PM
It's also for Whenever a Hollywood Film Company Wants to Invade your Neighborhood for a Few Weeks to Use The Streets or Someones House or Apartment Building to Film a Few Scenes for Their Movie Which we all Have to Admit is Very Inconviencing and Very Aggravating and Believe Me,I Know!!
I Used to Reside in Harlem back in The Early 90's and I Lived at That Time Up on Convent Avenue Bet 127th & 128th Street and I Remembered Them Filming a Movie in The Area Called "JUICE" That Starred Omar Epps and The Late Rapper Tupac Shakur(Back Then when Some People were Starting to Know who he was) and The Actors and Crew Were In The Area for 2 Weeks Using The Streets, A Grocery Store and A Teenage Hangout Game Room for The Filming. One Night Scene That They Did at 3 in The Morning had all of us up "The Residents" all w. Those Damn Bright A-- Lights that Were So Damn Bright that you would Think that you Were in Yankee Stadium Watching a Yankees Game!!. It May Sometimes Be a Problem When A Film Company Invades your Neighborhood, But look at The Revenue that It Generates for The City as Far as Jobs are Concerned!!

NoyokA
June 6th, 2005, 04:02 PM
What is a NIMBY, something that plagues New York.

ablarc
June 6th, 2005, 04:31 PM
A little elaboration:

http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3070&highlight=handbasket

TLOZ Link5
June 6th, 2005, 09:52 PM
What is a NIMBY, something that plagues New York.

Well, it depends. Jane Jacobs was a NIMBY when she argued for the discontinuation of vehicular traffic through Washington Square Park. The artists in SoHo were NIMBYs when they opposed the Lower Manhattan Expressway. Jackie Kennedy was a NIMBY when she derailed (no pun intended) the Penn Central Railroad's plans to demolish Grand Central Terminal.

I'd venture to say that there are many NIMBYs who have done a lot of good for New York. But there are still the zealous crazies among them who have done plenty of harm and pick all the wrong battles — in more ways than one.

Johnnyboy
November 23rd, 2005, 10:48 PM
the word NIMBY is used alot in this website. can anyone please tell me what you are refering to when you say NIMBY? Thankiu

Phentente
November 23rd, 2005, 11:17 PM
it stands for "Not In My BackYard"

generally it means those who are anti-development...even good development. Many of them seem not to have their facts straight and some others are hiding an agenda or are simply hypocrites. They have managed to reduce the size and importance of many projects. They are generally loathed by the people who frequent this site

PHLguy
November 24th, 2005, 12:16 AM
They are the ones who shortened the buildings on the Con ED site, and countless other NY projects. Every city has some, Although NY is one of the worst it's not as bad as SF.

Fabrizio
November 24th, 2005, 05:19 AM
"...generally it means those who are anti-development...even good development. Many of them seem not to have their facts straight and some others are hiding an agenda or are simply hypocrites. They have managed to reduce the size and importance of many projects. They are generally loathed by the people who frequent this site".

They´ve also saved huge pieces of Manhattan that developers were out to destroy...the Village, Soho, Tribeca, Little Italy...great, great nieghborhoods that would today only be a shadow of themselves if these forward thinking NIMBYs hadn´t stepped in. Fortunately today many of these neighborhoods are still fearcely protected ...for the benefit of all. They´ve also managed to save great buildings like Grand Central ( due in part to that great NIMBY icon Jackie Kennedy Onassis) and Carnegie Hall (imagine NYC without it). Radio City theatre was also saved due to pressure from the NIMBYs. NIMBYs were also the picketers trying to save Penn Station in 1964 and Broadway theatres in 1982.

ablarc
November 24th, 2005, 10:23 AM
They´ve also saved huge pieces of Manhattan that developers were out to destroy...the Village, Soho, Tribeca, Little Italy...great, great nieghborhoods that would today only be a shadow of themselves if these forward thinking NIMBYs hadn´t stepped in. Fortunately today many of these neighborhoods are still fearcely protected ...for the benefit of all. They´ve also managed to save great buildings like Grand Central ( due in part to that great NIMBY icon Jackie Kennedy Onassis) and Carnegie Hall (imagine NYC without it). Radio City theatre was also saved due to pressure from the NIMBYs. NIMBYs were also the picketers trying to save Penn Station in 1964 and Broadway theatres in 1982.
Fabrizio, why don't we agree to call these folks "preservationists" instead of "NIMBYs"; that way we'll retain a useful term for unmeritorious obstructionists without expanding the definition of NIMBY to the point of uselessness.

We'll also be using both terms the way most folks already do: preservationists are good and NIMBYs are not.

Alonzo-ny
November 24th, 2005, 10:27 AM
I agree saying the people preserving those neighborhoods are nimbys seems negative

Fabrizio
November 24th, 2005, 12:07 PM
At the time of the protest they were NIMBYs....with HINDSIGHT they are miraculously transformed into "preservationists".

Go figure.

Besides, we are ALL NIMBYs. Look around your neighborhood...how many of you would protest like C R A Z Y if you felt like the quality of your life was about to change because of a nearby development.

LeCom
November 24th, 2005, 12:54 PM
Yes, it's all true, but for the purpose of the discussion we call NIMBYs the assholes who shorten and cancel stuff for no apparent reason, at least in our eyes. The "bad guys", you know.

As of the project, I think it might be designed by SOM. I know for a fact that they (we?) are going to pull something off on West 34nd Street near their new Penn Station project, since the office was buzzing with activity and 3D-maps of that area. Don't count on it though, as of yet.

ablarc
November 25th, 2005, 08:54 AM
At the time of the protest they were NIMBYs....with HINDSIGHT they are miraculously transformed into "preservationists".
Though they may have been regarded as obstructionists, I doubt they were actually referred to as "NIMBYs"; the term hadn't been coined.

Fabrizio
November 25th, 2005, 10:17 AM
Yes, the easy sound-bite nick-name is surely new, but NIMBYs they were.

Thank God.

ablarc
November 25th, 2005, 10:45 AM
Or maybe they actually were preservationists. Most of us on this forum regularly favor preservation of a building for general cultural and aesthetic reasons without living or working immediately adjacent to the building in question. That fact alone disqualifies us from being called NIMBYs. When I function in that capacity I'd call myself a preservationist.

I bet most folks who favored preservation of Grand Central lived nowhere near it. They weren't NIMBYs.

Geographic adjacency: that's the other defining characteristic of the term.

If I lived in New York in a place with a view and someone proposed a new structure that would block my view, I can say without an iota of hypocrisy that I wouldn't lift a finger to obstruct that building on the grounds of narrow personal interest. If that building proposed to replace a beloved landmark, however, you'd see me up in arms.

NIMBYs and preservationists are two diferent creatures; they don't transmogrify into each other.

lofter1
November 25th, 2005, 12:59 PM
I doubt they were actually referred to as "NIMBYs"; the term hadn't been coined.
Although it was probably in use earlier than 1980 WordSpy ( http://www.wordspy.com/words/NIMBY.asp ) cites the earliest reference from that year:


"an attitude referred to in the trade as NIMBY — "not in my backyard."
—Emilie Travel Livezey, "Hazardous waste," The Christian Science Monitor, November 6, 1980

A link to a proponent of the much broader "NOMP" (Not On My Planet): http://www.sdearthtimes.com/et0700/et0700s19.html

Fabrizio
November 25th, 2005, 01:59 PM
"NIMBYs and preservationists are two diferent creatures; they don't transmogrify into each other."

I disagree. It depends on whose side you happen to be on.

Those blocking the distruction of Penn Station etc. were most definately obstructionists....and would have been called NIMBYs had the term existed.

The derogatory term at the time was: "Little old ladies in tennis shoes"

Penn Station (and etc.) WAS NOT seen as a "beloved landmark". The derogatory term at the time was "White Elephant".

They were blocking "the thousands of jobs that will be created"; they were blocking "the modern efficient whatever, that will replace the old outdated whatever" ....and etc.

And as for:

"I can say without an iota of hypocrisy that I wouldn't lift a finger to obstruct that building on the grounds of narrow personal interest."

Ok fine...I´ll believe you ...but I think that most will try (right or wrong) to protect the quality of their life and value of their property. "Narrow personal interest" is an intrinsic part of capitalism and American society.

Citytect
November 25th, 2005, 03:23 PM
Yeah, and people ofter site concerns other than their narrow personal interests when opposing projects, even though their real reason is just that. Some, I believe, do this consciously to strengthen their argument. Others, I think push it to their subconscious. They find ways to justify it to themselves. When people who would normally say, "I'll never protest a good project for my own personal concerns," are really faced with the situation in their backyard/neighborhood they start looking desparately for flaws to cling onto.

kliq6
November 28th, 2005, 09:59 AM
one thing that projects in Hudson Yards have over other areas is the lack of MIMBY"s. not many people are residents of the West 30's an compared to other areas, these projects will be large and move thru very quikck

infoshare
November 29th, 2005, 05:30 PM
"If I lived in New York in a place with a view and someone proposed a new structure that would block my view, I can say without an iota of hypocrisy that I wouldn't lift a finger to obstruct that building on the grounds of narrow personal interest. If that building proposed to replace a beloved landmark, however, you'd see me up in arms."

A "beloved landmark" is a matter of "public benefit" and therefore one would not be a NIMby in opposing it. Nimbysim (as I see it) is about the hypocrisy of concealing ones own self interested objectives and presenting a "stated objective" that somehow "sounds" better: but is patently false.

There is actually a book titled "ON bull sh-t". That book sort of explains the "justification" for such -------BS.
From Books at Amazon.com
"One of the most salient features of our culture is that there is so much bullshit," Harry G. Frankfurt writes, in what must surely be the most eyebrow-raising opener in modern philosophical prose. "Everyone knows this. Each of us contributes his share. But we tend to take the situation for granted." This compact little book, as pungent as the phenomenon it explores, attempts to articulate a theory of this contemporary scourge--what it is, what it does, and why there's so much of it. The result is entertaining and enlightening in almost equal measure. It can't be denied; part of the book's charm is the puerile pleasure of reading classic academic discourse punctuated at regular intervals by the word "bullshit." More pertinent is Frankfurt's focus on intentions--the practice of bullshit, rather than its end result. Bullshitting, as he notes, is not exactly lying, and bullshit remains bullshit whether it's true or false. The difference lies in the bullshitter's complete disregard for whether what he's saying corresponds to facts in the physical world: he "does not reject the authority of the truth, as the liar does, and oppose himself to it. He pays no attention to it at all. By virtue of this, bullshit is a greater enemy of the truth than lies are."
This may sound all too familiar to those of use who still live in the "reality-based community" and must deal with a world convulsed by those who do not. But Frankfurt leaves such political implications to his readers. Instead, he points to one source of bullshit's unprecedented expansion in recent years, the postmodern skepticism of objective truth in favor of sincerity, or as he defines it, staying true to subjective experience. But what makes us think that anything in our nature is more stable or inherent than what lies outside it? Thus, Frankfurt concludes, with an observation as tiny and perfect as the rest of this exquisite book, "sincerity itself is bullshit." --Mary Park

Douglas Groothuis, The Denver Post
""On Bull----," a remarkable (and serious) discussion on a prevalent problem by an insightful thinker".

ablarc
November 29th, 2005, 06:33 PM
NIMBYs and preservationists are both against change. The difference between them is their motives and also their location. The guy who stopped Piano's museum at Harvard had selfish motives; his opinion should have been ignored precisely because he was an abuttor and therefore incapable of the objectivity that should go with being a preservationist. Of course that didn't keep him from hypocritically claiming the motives of a preservationist; NIMBYs always do.

Preservationists are interested in the common good and the preservation of the environment. Because they usually don't live in the place they want to preserve they can't be suspected of hypocritical personal motives. Example: if someone proposed to rezone Brooklyn Heights for high rise buildings we'd all be up in arms on this forum, and I'll bet not one of us actually lives in Brooklyn Heights. That makes us preservationists, not NIMBYs.

infoshare
November 29th, 2005, 09:43 PM
. That makes us preservationists, not NIMBYs.

Hypothetically speeking -
I am "sincerely" a preservationists in wanting to keep the Histiorical structure accross the street from being demolished, however: I am in fact more interested in keeping my view.

SO, I will go out "publically" up-in-arms about being a preservationist- with the "stated objective" of being a preservationist. Am I a NIMBy now.

I think it is a matter of being in a (reality-based community) and having the opportunity to objectively question the bonafides of a so called "Preservationist".

I do agree with your general premise ablarc.