The Density Debate Pt. 1: Evolving Definitions

While looking into what has been written about the Berkeley Downtown Area Plan debate (see my post on October 17) I came across a very interesting article called "You're Not an Environmentalist If You're Also a NIMBY."  It was written by Robert Gammon of the East Bay Express.  For me, it shed considerable light on the density debate and the evolution of environmentalism.

Most people curious about planning issues have heard the term NIMBY, which stands for "Not in My Backyard."  If you google the definition you will find that it describes the type of person who resists new development or changes in their own neighborhood.  Some definitions mention that it is often used pejoritavely, or that the same person would not object to that development occurring elsewhere.  In my experience it has been extended to describe those who might concede that something may be neccesary or worthwhile as long as the inconvenience stays off of their lawn (or out of their sightline, or out of earshot etc.).

As Mr. Gammon points out, for years city dwellers have adopted a NIMBY-esque attitude against development under the umbrella of environmentalism,  preventing new apartments and condominiums from being built.  He describes this mostly liberal group as presenting their "eco-conscious" position to reduce traffic, overcrowding, and the potential destruction of neighborhood character.  In actuality, this attitude has contributed to suburban sprawl and increased commute miles, the effects of which few could hardly argue to be supported by the environmentalist community.  In addition, the lack of new housing left urban areas such as Berkeley and Oakland underdeveloped, further weakening the economic corner of the sustainability triangle (right).

I have personally heard this debate on the streets of downtown Berkeley, when volunteers opposed to the current DAP were collecting signatures for the petition to put it on the ballot.   Livable Berkeley is a group active in the DAP debate who consider themselves green and oppose the NIMBY attitude.  Erin Rhoades, the organization's volunteer executive director, tells Gammon: "Our goal is to shift the idea of what it means to be an environmentalist when living in a city, away from the protection of land to the more efficient use of land." 

This idea essentially moves the preservation vs. conservation debate as defined in the Progressive Era into modern urban/rural context: preservation of what has not been developed requires conservation of resources and compromise in personal benefits.  That we will grow is inevitable.  How we will grow is up to us.