The Revitalist

CEOs for Cities posts about a proposed "Urban Bill of Rights" or "The NIMBY Manifesto" proposed by Sharon Hudson, columnist for the Berkeley Daily Planet. There is just too much to say...

I posted a comment to the CEOs post protesting her use of the term "NIMBY" as if it were a good thing. I felt that her call for a focus on quality of life in urban planning would be antithetical to the NIMBY perspective. But after reading this entry from the Wikipedia and the article that accompanies the Manifesto, it became obvious that she's a NIMBY after all and is proud of it. She decries the "race to the bottom" that she sees being created by the current urban planning regime. She says

We cannot let planners and developers decide what we will do with our lives. I never hear planners discussing psychological health and cultural values. Planners have a different approach. As one Berkeley planner told me, no matter what they build, eventually those who can or must tolerate the new, worse environment will replace those who can’t. As this happens, resistance to further degradation lessens. But I reject this “race to the bottom.” And with enough time, planners and developers could also train Americans to live like drones in anthills—but why let them?
The reason Berkeley is making these three mistakes is that we have fallen under the control of developers and extremists, instead of implementing real smart growth. Accepted smart growth urban infill guidelines recommend more open space, more parking, smaller buildings, and greater housing variety than is called for by Berkeley’s current plans, codes, decision makers, false “smart growth” advocates, and, of course, developers. Real smart growth approximates what most of Berkeley looks like right now—two-story single-family homes with small yards, two- and three-story multi-unit buildings, somewhat taller buildings in mixed-use areas, plenty of greenery, adequate but not excessive parking, and attractive, walkable downtowns based largely on the preservation of historic buildings. This is what makes urban living humane, attractive, healthy, and sustainable. And it’s exactly what most Berkeley NIMBYs support.

Reading between the lines, I think she is advocating against high-rise apartment/condo towers. But she says at the start of the article that we need to stop the sprawling of the suburbs and draw people back into urban areas. She argues that we could do that if urban areas offered many of the amenities of suburban space (like fresh air and green space). Well, I think that is a great idea. But she doesn't seem willing to make any compromises to accomplish that goal. Is there room for the suburban refugees in those "two-story single family homes" and  the "somewhat taller buildings in mixed-used areas?" Maybe some other city could make room for them.

At first I didn't really believe that someone was out there waving their NIMBY flag proudly, even in Berkeley, but it's true. Between the anthills and the engorged concept of human rights, I am happier than ever to be living on the East Coast.