NIMBYism is getting out of hand in Australia, at the exact moment it is least needed.
Take an article that recently appeared in Nine’s real estate section Domain. It describes opposition to development in a street in the inner Melbourne suburb of Elwood. Three houses in the bayside suburb — outside the heritage boundary — will be replaced by a three-storey building that will provide 22 homes.
The local residents who oppose the development argue — apparently without irony — that the new homes will serve “the rich few”. In the Facebook group for my local area nothing creates more outrage than the idea flats might be built above the shops on the main road.
This is just a couple of examples of a giant trend. The NIMBY (“not in my back yard”) attitude can be found all over Australia and all over the world. Sydney is also caught in a similar furore. So-called “posh Sydney” — the eastern suburbs — is united in opposition to medium-density development “destroying” their suburbs. In the US, where San Francisco house prices have reached absurd levels but development is near impossible, NIMBYism has become part of the national debate.
The motivating factor seems to be a belief that, in cities, keeping things static is the natural order of things and change is an abomination. In fact, the reverse is true: cities are the locations of relentless change.
Across the world, cities have grown bigger without cease, for a very long time. Growth is the trend of the last 1000 years, as depicted in the wonderful graphic below, animated at this link.
If you click the link it will take you to an animation that underscores just how powerful this trend has been. In the century since 1920, New York has more than doubled in size and still fallen to the bottom of the top 10 cities by population.
As cities add residents they don’t merely take up more land. They also add more people per unit of land. Density rises, aided by construction advances that permit types of development that were not possible in the past.
Australian cities have risen in density in recent times. For example, in Melbourne, people per hectare has risen from around 24 to 32 between 2006 and 2018.
Cities mean growth
The growth of cities is a meta-trend. We need to understand living in a city as acceptance of this meta trend. A city grows, and if you accept all the benefits of living in one, you must also accept its growth. This is especially true in Australia, where our population growth is among the fastest in the developed world. A city that does not grow, or one that shrinks, is a city that is failing. Think of Detroit.
Agglomeration economics tells us that bigger cities tend to be richer and more productive, offering higher paying jobs, better hospitals and universities, and a more diverse range of all kinds of services. In many cases, it is the largest cities that grow the fastest.
The problem with NIMBYism
NIMBYism is part of what drives property prices so high. When opposition to local development means that homes can’t be built in useful areas, the remaining homes become scarce and extremely valuable. We see property prices zooming up, but no extra supply coming on line in those areas. Instead, the development has to be further away.
Building more housing in the most useful parts of our cities is a great way to prevent urban sprawl, and reduce commute distances and inequality of access. NIMBYism is a great way to contribute to sprawl that chews up valuable city-adjacent horticultural land, and causes demand for ever more freeways.
A cognitive trap
It is not possible to live in a city and have the size and density level of your area remain constant over the long term. So why do some people think that it is?
A city is an arc that tends larger and denser. We may be dropped onto the arc at a point in time where that tendency is imperceptible. As our childhoods played out, we grew and the city seemed to stay the same. Adulthood is the reverse and that makes us feel like the natural order has been upended.
Or a person may live through a blip: a 20-year period where density in their street or suburb does not change. This may shape their view of what is normal, but it will be wrong. That observation is based on too small a sample to tell us anything about the nature of cities. You need to zoom out to understand what is normal
The big picture shows that, over time, a city grows ever denser. (This website is an amazing resource for seeing how much has changed.)
Do not mistake a brief period of stability for the trend, or for what counts as normal. In the long run, density only goes up, and to fight it is to take up a doomed battle against forces far greater than the wishes of a few local residents.
We do not need everything jumbled together in a very dense city. Is it not possible to have our universities in regional centres. Not all manufacturing needs to be in the centre of a city. Good planning would enable regional areas access to good health services. People will live in regional areas if they can raise their families there ie access to good quality schooling, health services, shopping. All totally possible if governments insist on maintaining core services eg post office, banking medicare and centrelink offices. Smaller shop keepers will stay or reestablish if the central services are guaranteed. The myopia of those in the centre of large cities is breathtaking. Much of Europe is regional. In the UK many people prefer to ‘escape from the city’ to rural centres – but they do not have to do so at the expense of loss of access to quality health care and schooling. We need to plan our distribution of resources better.
Good thinking, Thinker.
A thought provoking article, thanks. A fascinating 1945/now map of Melbourne.
What rubbish. Where’s the economics? A house for most families is their biggest investment. As a group this investment they make is huge. So what is wrong with those same families defending the value of their investment and the amenity they sought in making the investment? Nothing. Why aren’t they entitled to the same consideration of investment certainty given to commercial interests? Nimbyism is really ‘Not Being Intimidated by Men in the Building Industry’ – its the developers and builders who make the profits at the expense of ordinary families’.
Mr Murphy, as a reporter, should go read some decent authorities, urban planners & economists on the fallicy of the claimed benefits from increasing urban densities, such as Pat Troy and Max Neutze. He should also go read the book ‘Game of Mates’, or ICAC reports, to learn how urban redevelopment really operates in Australia.
Increased density leads to *increased* property values, so anyone claiming that NIMBYism is in any way related to protecting one’s financial interests is obviously talking abject nonsense.
Only a poorly educated economist defines ‘value’ as the monetary value or price. As I said, families make the investment not only in the bricks & mortar, but for the amenity. Amenity includes the social networks they develop over time, the environment etc. These have much value.
Many people view their home investment as a consumption decision – they intend to live there; rather than a money making investment they will sell off once a better financial return can be found elsewhere. And the claim that land prices per square metre go up with increasing density is, if true, just another example that densification of cities REDUCES people’s standard of living. Urban density is not the problem, but population growth is.
Mark: without population growth, your kids don’t have jobs. We’re currently in a per-Capita recession. This means that if it wasn’t for population growth, we’d actually be in a real recession. I remember what that was like, and you sound like you’re old enough to understand all that entails. So your blaming of population growth for increasing urban density is correct, but you fail to identify the consequences of stopping population growth now that you’ve received your advantages from it. Your “amenity” may survive intact in a recession, but plenty of others would have bigger problems to face than their “amenity” being reduced.
You also ask: “…what is wrong with those same families defending the value of their investment and the amenity they sought in making the investment?”
Please allow me to tell you exactly what’s wrong with that.
You’re “defending” your investment not against property developers, but against other families who can only afford to live on the suburban fringe because of the lack of supply of housing in established areas such as yours. The enemy you’re “defending” against are families such as yours. They just don’t have the same privilege (financial and temporal) that you do.
A per capita recession means that individuals ARE in a recession.
Mark: without population growth, your kids don’t have jobs. We’re currently in a per-Capita recession. This means that if it wasn’t for population growth, we’d actually be in a real recession.
Er, no. This is completely backwards.
If A/B=Z, and you make B smaller, then Z gets bigger. So fewer people means higher employment, and a larger slice of the pie per person.
drsmithy 13June2019 00:12 is correct but only in an environment of automation and off-shore contracting for the Tertiary sector and thus little need for manual labour; i.e. with a Tertiary or Service sector; i.e. a modern economy.
Otherwise, Keynesian Effective Demand is the determinant for employment (as witnessed by the Great Depression)
Density improves for the better when existing residents, aka those with skin in the game, make fuss and noise to drive quality and amenity. Real estate development has long been the path to riches in this country which does too little to foster real innovation. It’s also the method par excellence to confer unearned rezoning windfalls to insider mates. Here in Melb the previous state Lib govt carved up the poorer areas for easy overdevelopment while locking up its wealthy base areas.
Developers are not our friends and development is not an unquestionable good.
Hear Hear! Jason has obviously not had his favourite park destroyed to make way for yet another shopping centre, road or housing estate! Maybe if he is so keen on mega cities he might like to go live in Mexico City and sing its virtues! This OBSESSION with GROWTH has GOT TO STOP! It is killing our planet and us!
22 ‘homes’ hey? Well, no. It’s 22 dwellings most likely owned by investors with the sole purpose of making them money whether the flats are occupied or not. One such development is literally in my backyard and the occupants are all short term with no care for the natural environment nor for the local community. More medium density development by all means, but not without proper planning.
Please allow me to annotate:
“22 dwellings”
Nice dehumanising. Yes renters don’t deserve homes anywhere near where you live, we know they’re all transient scum.
“…most likely owned by investors…”
i.e. occupied by tenants.
“…sole purpose of making them money…”
If you have other suggestions about how rental property should be made available to those less fortunate than you, I’m all ears. Perhaps you’re suggesting a massive expansion of public housing? I look forward to you not complaining when the Housing Commission is the developer, then! However, in my experience the only thing NIMBYs complain about more loudly than for-profit property developers is Public housing.
“…whether the flats are occupied or not.”
Well if they’re not occupied then at least there’s less renters for you to scowl at. I think you need to look at glass being half-full sometimes.
“…literally in my backyard.”
I’d get yourself a lawyer. It’s been a while since I’ve done my property law, but I’m pretty sure you have a case here.
“…the occupants are all short term…”
See above under “renters don’t deserve homes”
“…with no care for the natural environment…”
Whereas by forcing more housing to be built on the suburban fringe over market gardens, greenfield sites, native vegetation, grassland, etc you’re showing great care for the natural environment.
“…nor for the local community.”
With welcoming neighbours such as you I’m surprised they’re not getting more involved.
“More medium density development by all means, but not without proper planning.
Thus contradicting everything you’ve just said.
In the last census my city had nearly 1 in 4 dwellings unoccupied. This was the highest in Australia. I’m not seeing one in four houses empty so they must be all those horrible ugly poorly built concrete blocks which remind me of Soviet Russia. There are homeless people living on the streets while these units are kept empty and used purely as an investment vehicle.
Our city is the third oldest in the country and its heritage is being mown down for foreign (outside the city) profits.
This isn’t about rich vs poor, it’s about residents vs foreign investors. Oh, and our city is dying because no one can get in there to shop because of congestion brought on by excessive development.
Well said.