How’s it goin, fellow bots? Er, uh… I mean, “beep boop beep boop”🤖

Ask them if they would prefer more homeless in their neighborhoods.

​@@Acidlib ?

@@Acidlib Hah. Removed them!

Basically that is what NIMBYs do in the west coast all the time. Like screw everyone's housing as long as my real estate values continue to rise.

I completely agree. NIMBYs have vested interests. They're just as bad as lobbyists. Thing is we are talking about older generations that bought into the debt game whereas the younger ones have no concept of it. NIMBYs will actually be financially ruined if they're reverse mortgages go bust.

BINGO

In other words, too much weight is given to neighbourhood opinion in land zoning / planning / construction and too little weight is given to non-landowners. Landowners and homeowners somehow got secret extra votes in urban / country planning, making the "democracy" similar to for-profit corporation in this aspect.

@@billyswong Not extra votes; the rich are the majority oppressing the poor. It's like racism but about money rather than skin.

@@billyswong This isn't really true in the same sense. Home owning isn't the same as the per dollar "vote" we have in shareholders in capitalism. While homeowners can and do price people out so only more affluent people can effectively "vote" it would be bizarre if people who aren't vested in a community could vote on how an area is planned. And again unlike corporations with monopolies that are beholden to shareholders that are voting by the dollar amount you can just move to a different area. The reason why we have to take these "extra steps" is because the alternative is getting rid of local autonomy. You really think having a central authority is automatically better? It's true that where housing works we might see central authority but that doesn't mean central authority will automatically give us good planning. It's inherently anti-democratic. Instead we need a community where everyone is on the same page with the same incentives to support housing abundance. Then everyone would want to live in such a place and then places that are gentrified shitholes with houses that are a century old they bought for a million dollars won't matter because no one will ever want to buy there. The home owners will change their tune quick. Plus then the "lost value" can be reflected in new home owners paying less for homes so they can instead use that money to make real improvements instead of speculate.

Seriously. It’s just people who want to regulate their way into more valuable houses without actually producing anything of value on their own.

The problem is that city politicians are in on the scheme, too.

Technically it isn’t the NIMBY’s land so as long as they can somehow bully them harder, maybe by institutionally devaluing there opinions or making the definition of things like “stress” less favorable to NIMBYs, other parties are free to do whatever it wants on its land, especially if it means creating a lot of housing

Exactly. Part of living in a free society means you can't dictate how others use their land and how they live their life. NIMBYism is a fundamentally anti-freedom ideology.

I wouldn't personally say ignore, note that there was one and then file it away sure.

NIMBYs will go to no end to oppose a project or a program that they deem threatening to their status quo.

I heard of a similar case in an area I used to live in -- rich NIMBYs opposed nature trails being developed because they believed it would "attract criminals."

too many animals managing your condo they mean

Thats their argument, not their reason. It would lower the value of the building during a rental crisis. Less properties nearby means high as they want prices.

You can't win with these people

Home values shouldn’t matter. A home is to live in but we have normalized treating homes as trade-able commodities.

That myth that introducing new housing into neighborhoods, affordable or not, negatively affects property values irritates me to no end. If anything, building new housing in neighborhoods may actually INCREASE property values for existing homeowners. So NIMBYs and other "concerned" homeowners should if anything be supportive of new housing and transit, etc. Mixed income, transit accessible, and pedestrian friendly neighborhoods are the most desirable places to live anyway from a land value perspective.

It's code phrases. What they actually don't want is poor people. They don't want drug addicts and losers milling about, only other rich people.

@@harizotoh7 Probably good reason not to want to live near drug addicts... Many are a danger to themselves and to society.

@@musicotensai sure tell that to someone with a mortgage on a property for $800,000 that now is worth $600,000 due to a subsidized sometimes crime ridden public development next door.

Rich people will hoard as much wealth as possible, even if it means families won't have adequate housing. All these wealthy NIMBY's really care about is the value of their homes.

4 bedroom units close to a train station and a road with bus service... now you only need a school and a grocery shop there and people would literally kill for that!

The 4 bedroom units may have been removed by the developer when the project was scaled down. 4 br units get less rent per square foot (or meter), so the numbers don't work as well, particularly when the project gets smaller.

@@jaekim6433one look at that neighborhood and it doesn’t look rich. Looks like middle class credit card debt ridden, car loan infested neighborhood. If their property “value” goes down their ability to take out good loans against their equity is lowered. We are addicted to debt.

Also, I think it just takes a few people to gum up the process. It would be an interesting detail to know how many individuals were involved relative to the total area population.

I bet that evil car-addicted suburbanite Jason Spelts is one of them.

or attach infrastructure funding from the Federal government with strings attached. No funding for shiny new stuff without meeting certain density and urban dev standards

Make regulations for an area. Review them every 20 years. If things follow the rules, they get approved. Not public consultation needed.

Removing all zoning isn't the answer. Zoning has a purpose, it's just been *over* zoned to favor certain types of housing.

Single family housing need to be removed in cities. They serve no other purpose than luxury when you could have the same square footage in a luxury mid rise or highrise tower. They are waste of space, space that could go towards improving the quality of life for everyone in the city not just the rich.

We have that same zoning problem here in America. Isn't there some kind of way people can get zoning reform on the ballot?

In the age of remote work (which implies the possibility of remote versions of some types of social work), how bad is a greenfield site, really? Maybe give them new homes there, then have a strategy of expanding the nearby city into the green field overtime so their homes go up in value?

​@@ayoutubechannelname because the poor people who would be living there are not the same people who have remote work jobs. Realistically, they work in manual labor or retail, so unless that new housing is accompanied by a massive mass transit system, it simply isn't helpful to the people that needs to be helpful to

@@pennyforyourthots So you are saying there is a way to make it work?

@@ayoutubechannelname Very. Greenfield means destroying habitat just because there's various barrier to actual density.

@@Joesolo13 How are farms (which fit under the British-derived term “greenfield”) considered habitat? If we want to restore habitat, the problem to address is primarily the vast acreage of farms and, to a lesser extent, busy motorways through remote areas. Dutch style greenhouses are indispensable in that regard, as well as public transit.

lol is this cause she likes the island or something?

@@neolithictransitrevolution427 nah she was a vocal opponent of a tower being built in her neighbourhood a couple of years back, with the usual litany of NIMBY reasoning haha

@@TimTeboner Really puts robber bride in perspective where all the characters are very urban lol

@@TimTeboner I was actually involved in this (tangentially). The project was a low-rise luxury condo. Atwood promised to drop the case if the design was re-oriented around affordable housing. I don't really have a strong opinion on this case, but the facts have been muddled.

@@johnnycopping2113 to be fair, labeling a development "luxury" housing and saying that your objection is that there are "not enough affordable units" is a classic NIMBY move, just wrapped in language palatable to progressives. It achieves the same ends.

What are these people's addresses?

Boomers completely screwed us.

Sounds like John Phillips of 790 KABC. His entire radio show is pretty much dedicated to bashing public transport and multifamily housing.

In a growing region it doesn’t make sense to assume urban boundaries will stay the same forever so we don’t consider the Greenbelt sacrosanct in a way that many others do. With that said, if we’re going to develop some of the land we should at least get a lot of housing out of it (and use the opportunity for better neighbourhood design). So we don’t support the current proposal as we understand it (Paige Saunders did a quick analysis and indeed found that it would be low density sprawl) but we could in theory support a different proposal for something like medium-density mixed-use low-car neighbourhoods.

@@OhTheUrbanity Absolutely! Thank you! I get frustrated that the debate gets reduced down to "more housing" vs. "save the greenbelt"... I'm not opposed to responsibly re-zoning the greenbelt lands, as long as it's with a goal of better cities, not just more unchecked suburban sprawl.

@@OhTheUrbanity This is an awful take. We have gulf courses beside GO stations in this video. Suggesting we should change the urban boundary, in an incredibly environmentally sensitive region that overlaps with a very limited amount of high quality farm land in Ontario, is negligent. The green belt is based on protecting water ways that feed into Ontario Marsh lands and support not only ecosystems, but industries like fishing. There are huge swaths of SFZ in downtown Toronto, literally beside transit stops. Suggesting that should be protected over the greenbelt is the least urbanist argument I've heard.

@@neolithictransitrevolution427 Fair points, I agree there are many opportunities to densify within current boundaries, care needs to be taken around waterways to protect sensitive ecosystems, and protecting the agricultural lands we have left is important, and it seems current government disagrees. But as cities continue to grow, eventually urban boundaries will need to as well, and I think it's better that the growth is inside the greenbelt rather than outside where communities will be more isolated, car dependent etc. The key is to make sure the growth happens responsibly, and I don't trust the current government to do so.

@@arden0 Respectfully, I don't agree those boundaries ever need to move. We have huge amounts of SFH to rezone. And we have cities like Kingston and London and Niagara that can be built into their own urban centers and connected by HSR to Toronto very easily. Let along Hamilton and Oshawa and Markham. Making any allowance to expand the boundary is support of low density autocentric development, you don't make your new urban centers on the fringe of the suburbs.

In the UK, the council housing seemed the best care for, compared to private multifamily housing. But, it means that the government gets to tell you where you can live. There were frequent news stories about people not being able to convince council that they needed to live in that city.

Excellently stated. The problem is that treating a basic human need like a stock investment was always a terrible idea, but moving away from that model will require that people who bought into it lose most of the value they got out of it. To make matters worse, since having a house requires wealth, the people that have them are better able to prevent any changes from being made to the system. It's like trying to get politicians to pass anti-corruption laws.

@@bearcubdaycare tbf we're already told where we can live by a variety of factors. Cost, zoning, regulations (environmental and others), not to mention property rights themselves.

@@pendlera2959 that's the terrifying dilemma we're in. the crazy high cost of housing makes a whole bunch of problems but you can't deny that bringing the cost of housing down also means a whole lot of people would lose a whole lot of money. especially older folks who need it for retirement. but then that would beg the question, if the government increased pension payouts somehow while building affordable housing would that start to resolve the problem better? that's what i'm thinking. another thing to think about is that if the prices go up infinitely the market will crash because at those high price points you'll eventually hit a liquidity crisis since nobody anymore is willing to pay the huge prices associated with that item, e.g. nobody there to sell to.

@@bearcubdaycare The city that strikes the most realistic compromise is probably Vienna. Vienna's housing market would be an improvement for almost anywhere, and they basically push the British council flat model to it's apex. I don't know what the best answer is to the underlying problem here, but I think other cities could approach a market more like Vienna's more incrementally than the radical change that would be needed to imitate Singapore-and Singapore's model has a different set of drawbacks, too. The commoditisation of housing is a deep problem that doesn't admit easy solutions. It needs to be grappled with seriously, and unfortunately, just wringing our hands and imploring people to altruistically vote against their individual interests for the collective good isn't going to cut it. In other words, NIMBYism is a massive problem that can't really be blamed on NIMBYs.

Exactly. Good idea.

A city near me used a mall as a transit hub, but it didn't work, as few want to go to the mall. More recently the university has become a bit of a hub, more successfully from what I know. I think that the mall needs to be redeveloped into mostly housing, but it doesn't work as a transit hub before then.

natick massachusetts did that!!

This has worked very well in Pickering and Vaughan

Density stacking will never resolve affordability problem - it inflates land value, making all housings less affordable. If you have land tax it is even worse - towers doesn’t pay much on a per capita bases.

@@antonburdin9756 Demand makes land value increase, not density. Density increases supply. Why would towers not paying as much per capita make affordablilty worse? It means that low density uses are pushed to redevelop, since they pay more tax per capita, and thereby add supply.

We don't value power centralization.

@@shauncameron8390 you did when you let the government do eminent domain with ethnic enclaves to build freeways that tore through downtowns. Such hypocrisy.

Or just get rid of most of the codes all together.

@@Argonhubert slimming it down to 13 zones like the Japanese, while still allowing small scale mixed use, might do the trick.

While this would in fact take away any power from NIMBYs (but also from reasonable complaints), it wouldn't fix the other issue: The separation of residential and small-scale-business has to go and at least some level of walkability needs to become a protected right. Maybe even a plain ban on developing new areas at the city borders instead of increasing density.

Why do some people keep bringing up age where all ages have all different views. You end up ostracizing people who agree with you. Age is something we can't control so why browbeat people for it? The group you're talking about is Nimby (not in my backyard). It's in the title of their video.

@a it's because the older gens are the ones with the most power, money, and influence. They are also the ones who constantly reject re-zoning laws that would allow for more new multi-family housing units to be built in lieu of new. single family housing being built.

@@ms_cartographer We should have let Covid wipe out everyone over the age of 45. No more housing crisis!

@@user-gu9yq5sj7c curious question, do you know about Redlining and Racial Covenant Deeds?

Because its the greatest gen, boomers and gen xers that created the problem in the first place and the ones who are causing the problem to persist?

A lot of it is (rightfully) protected ravine land and at high risk for flooding. But that said, a chunk of it would be prime for some housing, and the rest primed for a megapark.

I think that the german model - when we still used to build social housing which we unwisely decided to stop a few decades ago - is the best one. Learning from historic problems caused by concentrating primarily "poor" people into a building/city area, the german model in its final years instead build mixed units aimed at different demographics: The idea was that to avoid "ghettoisation" you have to make sure that not only "poor" people go there but that also middle class and yes, even upper middle class people dwell there. This avoids the poor reputation of certain non mixed areas and as such also benefits poorer residents who suffer far less from not getting a job because of their adress. It also stabilizes the socio demographics of the area, avoiding most of the effects that make existing neighbours repellent on the idea of social housing. Having middle class citizens living there also makes it much more difficult to cut away at the services offered by the city there. It is easy to neglect citizens who often dont vote or even arent allowed to vote in local elections... but as any consilor will attest you, pissing off the middle class is generally shied away from... because those people if sufficiently angry can and will make your life very very miserable and in fact are often quite capable of ending your political career.

is public transit in quebec (more specifically montreal/quebec city) better than ontario? does the province of quebec have their own version of Go trains? I'm considering moving to either quebec or out the country to france when i finish high school. simply for better public transportation and walkable neighbourhoods.

@@gothamtransitauthority7990 Cant speak about Quebec City, but I have been living in Montreal for 2 years. It is efficient with its exo train service (pretty than the GO train), Metro system and buses not near Île-Ouest. GO Train itself isnt ideal ik buts better than VIA Rail

@@gothamtransitauthority7990 Public transit is good in Montreal. It drops off everywhere else sadly, though some places are really trying to get better service.

Go to Asia where there is opportunity and good government.

What are your favorite aspects of this particular project?

this is it, the reservation meta

The density of that project is on another level. 10 acre site with a future population around 9000 puts it at 230,000 persons per km². It will be up there with the densest administered areas in the world.

@@AppleCheese12345678 Unfortunately, I can’t share your excitement. “High-rises are the lazy architect’s density” - Jan Gehl This project is a prime example of so called “Great Bargain” - it is an attempt to overcompensate artificial land scarcity created in Vancouver by land mismanagement. Density stacking will only inflate land value - making all housing less affordable. This is why projects like this could not resolve affordability problem, the only viable alternative is to up-zone all RS zones (~80% of territory). The only form of housing which could be abundant is market housing. To make market housing affordable we need to make significantly more land available for development. It should not be concentrated - rather dispersed all over the city in a form of missing middle. Kitsilano is a relatively dense community, but it should not be exempt eight. However, we can’t ignore the fact that some of its residents are among top tax payers in this country. Replacing a single family home with a tower we are always driving land values up and at the same time decreasing property tax on a per capita basis. Senakw could be dense, but It can’t be walkable - it is everything but “human scale”, not a “15 minute city” either. There is no infrastructure for proposed 9000 residents: Henry Hudson School is at full capacity already, no daycare facilities, no grocery stores (Nofrills is over 15 minute walk), no healthcare facilities (St. Paul’s Hospital will be relocated), no transportation. Burrard Bridge is not a part of reserve land - and a transit hub on a bridge is a perfect recipe for disaster. City car, previously mentioned in the project proposal, is not happening any time soon because of the Broadway SkyTrain, which is too far to walk. The single proposed street will be packed with delivery vehicles. My best guess - they will end up building parkade at Molson’s land later on. There’s no guarantee that any units will remain rentals and especially “below market rentals”. Nothing could prevent this development from transforming to 100% investment condos at any time - the city has no control. It would likely benefit developers and investors like Westbank, but indigenous people and the city will be left to deal with all the problems. I would rather use this land for waste to energy facility similar to CopenHill. It could cut emissions because all our garbage trucks are now driving to Delta. Produced energy could be used for district heating and EV charging.

@@antonburdin9756 Lots of density and a quick turnaround on the project are probably my top two. While it's possible to get that sort of density elsewhere it can take a real long time to work through the planning process with the city and I really REALLY want Senakw to highlight how drawing out the planning process hurts affordability. They don't have to scrap every bylaw ( though some probably should be ) but they absolutely have to staff up the city departments responsible for approving whether or not a development is in compliance with one bylaw or another.

​@@WillmobilePlus It is treated like a commodity though.

​@@WillmobilePlus Uh, it does "grow" from the ground. It's just not called "growth", it's called construction.

The exact opposite happened near me, below market apartments were built downtown and the property management company isn't really maintaining the property or some illicit activities by tenants in the parking area. Also habitat built a home in a neighborhood that is about 700 square feet 2/3? bedroom, totally out of character to the homes nearby (it's essentially a mobile home mixed in with stick builts ). Then the tenants completely trashed the property and the yard creating an ongoing eyesore.

NIMBYs are not human beings deserving of rights.

I think many of the NIMBYs in the USA are people who do not move a lot. Anecdotally, most I’ve seen at local meetings are people who introduce themselves by staging how long they’ve lived in the neighborhood, which is typically measured in decades rather than years.

I think preservation of greenspace is important. When you increase density, reducing greenspace is a surefire way to make sure other people fight new density as hard as possible. I'm sure these people would be just as happy to ban immegrantion to Toronto or ban all new building so their property continues to go up in value.

They already have their massive yards.

@MW Mobile look my frustration comes from the fact that housing in the city of Toronto is treated like a luxury rather than a necessity. The examples you just mentioned can be approved, though imo, they should only be approved so long as there's housing on top of them You are right that discussion and difference are important to democratic institutions But all parties must enter in good faith Most of the time the attitude on display here is NOPE NOPE NOPE NOPE GO AWAY There's a reason I say yes there needs to be time to voice concerns But when there is a housing shortage to the point of causing increasing homelessness and probably tipping the scales in terms of violence on the ttc, the calculus of those discussions shift

@@WillmobilePlus If we vote to elect politicians that enact policies that limit the ability of a small group of selfish NIMBYs to prevent necessary housing that benefits the entire city, that's still democracy.

@@WillmobilePlus Some NIMBYism is fine. I certainly don’t fault people who protest or protested the construction of new freeways or widening of existing ones through urban neighborhoods. That’s not what this is about though. It’s about affordable housing and these NIMBYs are just being selfish.

​@@WillmobilePlus The problem is the people are denying other people access to a basic need. Imagine if we let business owners vote on how many new business licenses could be given out per year and for what - we'd have nothing but monopolies. If people are treating houses like investments, then they need to be limited in their ability to prevent others from entering the market.

@@WillmobilePlus If the monstrosity is the only option for that community, then yes, they should have no right to prevent it from being built. I mean, sure they have the right to complain, but their complaints should not have legal weight. It's like public schooling or water treatment - if it's needed for the good of community, you shouldn't get to prevent it from being built just because it's ugly or might hurt your own property values. Because property values are dependent on artificially low supply, all new housing is a threat to homeowners, and therefore they should not have free reign to prevent new supply or else all of society will suffer for their benefit. Perhaps a compromise would be for the city to say "we're going to build X amount of new housing whether you like it or not. However, you can decide from these preapproved areas where it should be built, and choose from these preapproved designs." So people can have some say in the building project, but not actually tank the project. It boils down to corruption: property owners treat their properties as investments, and are taking advantage of current laws to harm others. There are no easy or nice solutions: if they won't play nice and let other people join in, then you have to treat them like colluding price-fixing businessmen and stop them by force. Renters might not count as entering the market, but if people are forced to overpay for rentals when supply is limited, they can never build up the money to buy. Thus, limiting the supply of rentals is a method for keeping people out of the market.

@@Zedprice NIMBY's are not exactly a small group.

There's already a path back there? I didn't walk back behind the lot because it was raining

@@OhTheUrbanity It can get pretty muddy. Been a year to two since I've looked. Metrolinx briefly blocked it under the bridge in the 2010s, then moved the fencing to just cover the tracks and leave the path open.

I know that's right

And why should they? The best interests of others is not their responsibility. Which doesn't really exist due to the tragedy of the commons.

@@shauncameron8390 Because, the ridiculous housing prices in Toronto and Vancouver has been caused by the government who restricted buidling of housing affordable and non affordable. This has skyrocketed the house prices and consequently the rents too. Its not fair for anyone if a house cost 1.5M and they are making a median salary in Canada of 44K. This means 95% of the population will never be able to buy a house, why the greedy property owners are charging extortion rents. This a house of cards that is going to colllapse once the immigration of 300-500K of immigrants is cut off!!! Only the immigrants arriving with suitcases of money are buying $1.5M + houses and condos. God forbid you were born in this country and make a crappy median salary, and have to pay canadian level taxes that do NOT have to paid in other countries

@@mateofernando5066 66% of ordinary Canadians are home-owners. So's who's this 95%? The rents are no more extortionate than the property taxes, mortgages and interest, etc. the property-owners pay to greedy government and banks.

So if I live in a low density neighbourhood and don't want to move I should fight tooth and nail to prevent a GO station from being built within a 15 minute walk of my home.

@@studentofsmith Lolz to your user name, here are some Adam Smith Quotes for you. “Ground rents are a species of revenue which the owner, in many cases, enjoys without any care or attention of his own. Ground rents are, therefore, perhaps a species of revenue which best bear to have a particular tax imposed upon them.” “As soon as the land of any country has all become private property, the landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed and demand a rent even for its natural produce.” “A tax upon ground-rents would not raise the rents of houses. It would fall altogether upon the owner of the ground-rent, who acts always as a monopolist, and exacts the greatest rent which can be got for the use of his ground.”

@@neolithictransitrevolution427 Adam Smith also saw production in agricultural terms and concluded that doctors were not productive because they didn't produce anything. But you're not addressing my point which is the opposition to GO stations that will be generated once people realize densification will follow.

@@studentofsmith Its a fair point, although he was right about landlords. I think thats really fine as a result. For one, you can do what Ford did with rent restriction, and say this policy is only true for existing stations. Secondly, for the most part, stations already (or are currently being expanded to) form a pretty wide ranging network. Expanding into more rural areas past Bowmanville or Hamilton etc doesn't really have a base to push back. Third, it's much easier for Metrolinks as a government agency to cram a project through than dozens of individual developers fighting their own projects. Plus doctors are in fact useless.

@@neolithictransitrevolution427 "Plus doctors are in fact useless." You've been making good, logical points; why would you discredit yourself by saying something like this?

Who's this Nimby Patrol?

What other nation besides usa and can do local homeowners get veto power on projects

Nah, not unless Musk steps down..

They have you up against nimby patrol, that's brutal and not fair.

@@baronjutter 100%

The neighbours could easily describe their veto power over projects as "democratic".

Yes, the people are indeed the problem. That's evidence by what they vote for.

As far back as 2002 it was clear from public consultations that neighbours opposed medium- or high-density residential as well as affordable housing. They preferred it to stay undeveloped or at most be more low-density housing.

@@OhTheUrbanity Have you heard of a place called Poundbury in the UK? It is a housing project built by Prince Charles, it has more social housing than a normal development, the social housing is high quality and indistinguishable from the homes built to be sold. Over the last 20 years the rich are willing to pay an average 30% per sqft more to live in Poundbury, next to poor people than in any of the nearby developments. Because it's a beautiful place. So of course every modern architect absolutely hates it. Architects would rather die than build beauty, the rest of us would rather kill the architects than allow any more of their dystopian creations get built.

@@disposabull "Architects would rather die than build beauty, the rest of us would rather kill the architects than allow any more of their dystopian creations get built." It don't think it's fair to blame architects; a lot of them are artists at heart and deeply crave the opportunity to create something beautiful. But they're limited by what developers are willing to pay for, and usually that's cheap, bland, cookie cutter crap. Good designs cost money; Prince Charles clearly didn't hire the cheapest architect or only pay for the bare minimum of exterior ornamentation. In fact, I bet if the "low income" housing plans looked better than the local norm, people would oppose it because they would hate the idea of poor people living in nicer housing than them.

@@pendlera2959 The public supported the Prince, the architects eviscerated him. An architect shouldn't be "an artist" that seeks to challenge people. An architect isn't a builder, isn't a structural engineer. An architect is supposed to create beauty. It's literally the only reason the job exists. But instead, architects build dystopian hellscapes that traumatise people and create dysfunction.

@@disposabull I'll admit, I don't know the specifics of the Poundbury project. (Though I intend to look up more about it - thanks for bringing it up! Very interesting.) But I'm an artist and I've interacted with a lot of other artists, many of whom want to become architects. Most of us want to make the world a more beautiful or at least more visually interesting place. "An architect shouldn't be "an artist" that seeks to challenge people." The whole "art should challenge people" is a stereotype that only applies to a tiny amount of artists. Those kinds of artists are more like visual philosophers and it's not fair to act like all artists think that way. I agree that an architect should try to create beauty, and I think most want to. But consider how much backlash people get just for painting their house a bright color. Is it really so hard to imagine that kind of intolerance of deviation from the norm routinely coming from low-cost housing developers?

They do support affordable housing. Just not right next to them.

Thank you! Unfortunately I think motivated reasoning is very powerful. When people don't want their neighbourhood to change, it's really easy to convince themselves of things like "well, building more housing won't actually help the housing crisis", and so on.

I can't tell if this is said by the NIMBY or YIMBY but it's true either way. The rule of man is over, now begins the rule of Fire! I will no longer be shackled by the civilized society of the above ground. This is Underground and the only law here is Flame. The Fire wants not justice, the Fire wants not reason, the Fire's only desire is to be fed! FEED THE FIRE!

Don't say or do that. That is not a peaceful protest, rather its more of a forceful one.

@@Humulator obviously a joke, I do not condone the use of violence.

@@vaga4239 I understand, however there are people who actually would do this kind of stuff. Its similar to the tire deflaters, they have good intent, but are too forceful. not fun fact: look up any anti-15 minute city video, and everyone in the comments thinks we are some "na. zi" who are trying to control the world lol.

​@@Humulator I mean crazy people will do crazy stuff and believe crazy things, I don't think jokes will curve their trajectory.

One thing to remember is golf courses are often in flood plains, which is why Florida is so full of them. So it may not be possible or smart to develop there. That said, I agree it's a waste, at minimum those should be parks and I'm sure some level of development is achievable.

That's good!

Most kids growing up in a "Commie Block" neighborhood would disagree. There is nothing better as a kid to have your friends close by, a place to kick a ball and some bushes and trees to have a base in. Well, it used to be the best.

Gee, isn't that awful.

NIMBYs are not human beings deserving of rights.

We've always championed supply as the core of the solution to the housing crisis, but we think there's value in creating mixed-income communities, especially when we're talking about surplus city land here, and especially when it's near important public amenities like transit.

@@OhTheUrbanity I know, I'm a long time fan of the channel! I get your point, but I think I value the practicality of getting more apartments built over allowing for stuff like this which is continuously used to prevent projects.