I never got the idea of too many storys ruining dublins skyline thats often cited by the city council like... What skyline? Honestly like dublin bareley has a skyline let alone one that can be ruined lmao
This video is great. I live in San Jose, California, which is also one of the most nimby cities in the world, and its absolutely ruined any young professionals chance of being able to live alone
Jesus, when you said "especially those not working in the lucrative tech sector", i nearly cried. Honestly, that one sentence made me feel so seen and validated ❤️
Street votes seems like a solution to American problems rather than Irish problems. In the US, they often have zoning that restricts development to the least dense possible. In Ireland, while we often have similarly restrictive zoning, it is less common. And isn't the primary axis of NIMBYism as described in this video, which is objecting to proxy issues (E.G. brent geese) to block new housing. Street votes wouldn't solve spurious objections and would be difficult to implement as there is no existing legal framework, which the video admits. I know I've been very critical in this comment so far, but I am interested in seeing where this channel goes and I did enjoy the video and thought the analysis was good.
I think it is an Irish problem too. Look at Dublin's urban sprawl and how it's basically now expanding into Wicklow, Kildare and Meath (with low density housing) and you'll see the similarity to American cities. housing estates with poor infrastructure. that's seen both here in Dublin and in the US. It's not the zoning here that has caused the problem as such, as far as I know, but the lack of proper long term planning in the 20th century for the city and how it's cheaper and easier to build out than up
@@sundersquare I agree, after living in Spain and Germany I came home to Dublin. With my knowledge and understanding of what many American cities and suburbs are like, I can only compare Dublin to them and not the European ones. Car dependency, low density low rise, lack of quality transport etc.
This happens in South Africa too. I live in KwaZulu Natal Durban We have a huge housing problem, many people are living in shacks or in backrooms. The problem of NIMBY is increasing the crime too, police here are seen incompetence workers who cant do their job.
There is a difference between American NIMBYism and European NIMBYism that tends to be overlooked. American (and European urban) NIMBYs are against high-density housing, European (rural) NIMBYs tend to be against building American-style suburbs. Whilst this is regardless of the principles for being a NIMBY, it is important to consider. I see little discussion of this elsewhere, and it was a relief that this seems to directly focus on those against high density housing, which has always been a European strength. I had suspected that votes played a part in the aversion to high-density housing (as it didn't seem to make sense to be industry-supported; high density is also by and large high profit), and it is nice to see someone else highlighting this. I have a suspicion that the attacks on rural NIMBYs are at least somewhat supported by large, poor-quality housebuilders.
Every 60 sometime year old living in the suburbs of the major cities of these country is happy to live in a house that was built in what once was a quiet rural village less than a century ago, but refuses to enterain the notion that maybe we should let people build, buy and live in buildings that have more than 2 floors. We need to end the democratization of planning/building in this country, the way we were able to build fast in the past was the lack of regulation and the corruption where there was regulation. Now it's a Sisyphian task to get anything built in this country without making sure it doesnt obstruct the view of an already blind geriatric.
Street votes would only make this issue 1,000,000 times worse. Nobody would EVER vote to upzone their neighborhood. the only solution is simply to upzone the neighborhood from a top down authority.
A solution I’d be onboard with is that only people who live within a 500m radius of a project can submit an objection. Anybody further away from this would have to pay for a surveyor/architecture firm to provide genuine rationale why said project shouldn’t happen Wouldn’t solve all our issues but would cut down on the level of spurious claims we get
Future thought: would love a video on instances where planners and architects in Ireland attempted to future proof their designs for a growing society only to have NIMBYs and politicians vetoing those future projects. Prime example is the Luas' intertrack gauge of the Rathmines to Sandyford stretch being built to metro standards (increased distance between lines enabling faster vehicles) to eventually allow for airport connectivity all the way from Sandyford being shut down following local opposition.
I’m still annoyed by this, much of the Green Line between Broombridge and Sandyford is effectively premetro (except the bit in the actual city centre 🙄) and would be relatively straightforward to upgrade, except as you say the sensible preplanning of engineers in the early 00s wasn’t capitalised on See also the suggestion by Jim O’Callaghan that the metro shouldn’t go to Charlemont. In other European countries, politicians fight for rapid transit to reach their constituencies - rarely does a metro terminate in the city centre without a good geographic reason to do so…
Ireland should completely replace the existing failed planning system, and prevent people with homes stopping new homes being developed, if an area is zoned for high density housing it should be much easier for propery owners to develop apartments on it, opportunities for blocking new developments should be limited, as long as the planned development complies with development policy it should be allowed. Environmental reasons should not be valid reasons for blocking development, they are just used to justify NIMBYism, almost always these environmental objections are not genuine, and even if they are the right of people to housing and develop on their lands overrides these. All human life impacts on the environment, this is natural and not a bad thing.
There can be ways of integrating the environment into our cities too, and I can't imagine anyone objecting to the lovely images of sustainable architecture :^) it is often cleaner and more pleasant to look at.
i honestly believe nimbyism is largely caused by the people living in the impacted area simply not seeing a direct benefit to them personally, sounds selfish but it is how people work and honestly kinda fair (with fears of gentrification and being priced out of your area are very easy to understand) HOWEVER i think if we show these same people proper incentives like lets say, if you own a home in the area in the same way the people of norway OWN the natural resources, the people of the area OWN that land, so money made from new mid to high-rise developments could be put into a local wealth fund (similer to norways wealth fund they invest oil money with) "friendlyjordies" an australian youtuber had a good line when the "yes" vote sadly didnt go through which was "end of the day people are just worried about the money in their back pocket" that one line has very much changed how i view the way new infrastructer and housing developments are handled. if people aren't directly involved they are more likely going to be against it and i would argue that's a good thing
copenhagen's model of utilising the fact their land is SO expensive and then utilising that to pay for a new metro is honestly a stroke of genius, could you imagine the infrastructure dublin could build if they utilised the land in the same way, combine the street vote idea and tell those same people "if you go even denser we can use the money to preinstall a whole light metro line increasing the land value further" it could change dublin forever (and every other irish city, further protecting the countries beautiful country side)
I think you need to address that immigration is a huge factor driving NIMBYism. Building homes for someone's children? Sure. Building homes to facilitate unwanted migration while housing continues to become less and less affordable anyway? I can sympathise with detractors.
@@weaksauce13 Absolutely we are all humans, but demand can't keep outpacing supply. Residents pay the localised cost as outlined in the video, but if the immigration rate sustains, then the residents lose faith in the delocalised/systemic benefit. Of course, any sincerely racist person can latch onto this economic argument to advance their bigotry, but that doesn't make the economic reality disappear. Immigration does need to slow until supply catches up.
Amateurs trying to reinvent a better wheel. It is both describing the *leeding obvious and woeful ignorance of what has been tried and worked and why. I note high land value is not mentioned as a cause of the problem. Who is ‘we’. And who or what vested interests are funding the slick production values?. I think we should be told.
Probably George Sorros and Bill Gates. Not everything is a conspiracy. Some people are actually trying to do good in the world. While people like you just want to hold us back.
David McWilliams also called this BANANA aka Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything. 😅
I never got the idea of too many storys ruining dublins skyline thats often cited by the city council like... What skyline? Honestly like dublin bareley has a skyline let alone one that can be ruined lmao
This video is great. I live in San Jose, California, which is also one of the most nimby cities in the world, and its absolutely ruined any young professionals chance of being able to live alone
Jesus, when you said "especially those not working in the lucrative tech sector", i nearly cried. Honestly, that one sentence made me feel so seen and validated ❤️
Street votes seems like a solution to American problems rather than Irish problems. In the US, they often have zoning that restricts development to the least dense possible. In Ireland, while we often have similarly restrictive zoning, it is less common. And isn't the primary axis of NIMBYism as described in this video, which is objecting to proxy issues (E.G. brent geese) to block new housing. Street votes wouldn't solve spurious objections and would be difficult to implement as there is no existing legal framework, which the video admits.
I know I've been very critical in this comment so far, but I am interested in seeing where this channel goes and I did enjoy the video and thought the analysis was good.
I think it is an Irish problem too. Look at Dublin's urban sprawl and how it's basically now expanding into Wicklow, Kildare and Meath (with low density housing) and you'll see the similarity to American cities. housing estates with poor infrastructure. that's seen both here in Dublin and in the US. It's not the zoning here that has caused the problem as such, as far as I know, but the lack of proper long term planning in the 20th century for the city and how it's cheaper and easier to build out than up
@@sundersquare I agree, after living in Spain and Germany I came home to Dublin. With my knowledge and understanding of what many American cities and suburbs are like, I can only compare Dublin to them and not the European ones. Car dependency, low density low rise, lack of quality transport etc.
Really interesting content, look forward to the next video!
Excellent video! Extremely engaging. Can’t wait to see the next one.
Great content! Looking forward to seeing the next episode.
Very interesting ideas, and engaging presentation.
Wow, amazing, super interesting content. I vote for the street
Really liked it and definitely gave me food for thought.
Great video, very interesting content
Finally an innovative approach to increasing value & options for housing in an existing neighborhood!
I am looking forward to watch next episode!
Super interesting concept
This happens in South Africa too. I live in KwaZulu Natal Durban
We have a huge housing problem, many people are living in shacks or in backrooms. The problem of NIMBY is increasing the crime too, police here are seen incompetence workers who cant do their job.
It’s almost as if Anglo style government IS INEFFECTIVE
There is a difference between American NIMBYism and European NIMBYism that tends to be overlooked. American (and European urban) NIMBYs are against high-density housing, European (rural) NIMBYs tend to be against building American-style suburbs. Whilst this is regardless of the principles for being a NIMBY, it is important to consider. I see little discussion of this elsewhere, and it was a relief that this seems to directly focus on those against high density housing, which has always been a European strength. I had suspected that votes played a part in the aversion to high-density housing (as it didn't seem to make sense to be industry-supported; high density is also by and large high profit), and it is nice to see someone else highlighting this. I have a suspicion that the attacks on rural NIMBYs are at least somewhat supported by large, poor-quality housebuilders.
Every 60 sometime year old living in the suburbs of the major cities of these country is happy to live in a house that was built in what once was a quiet rural village less than a century ago, but refuses to enterain the notion that maybe we should let people build, buy and live in buildings that have more than 2 floors.
We need to end the democratization of planning/building in this country, the way we were able to build fast in the past was the lack of regulation and the corruption where there was regulation. Now it's a Sisyphian task to get anything built in this country without making sure it doesnt obstruct the view of an already blind geriatric.
Street votes would only make this issue 1,000,000 times worse.
Nobody would EVER vote to upzone their neighborhood. the only solution is simply to upzone the neighborhood from a top down authority.
A solution I’d be onboard with is that only people who live within a 500m radius of a project can submit an objection. Anybody further away from this would have to pay for a surveyor/architecture firm to provide genuine rationale why said project shouldn’t happen
Wouldn’t solve all our issues but would cut down on the level of spurious claims we get
great! can't wait for next videos
Your accent is very clear and easy to understand ❤
Great vid, very interesting stuff
Polysee: Ireland's housing crisis is bad
*screams in Canadian*
It's actually much worse here You might pay just as much as we do, but you actually get something for that money
Haigh! Wondering what software do you use for your models? Sketchup? No clár eile? Grma
Hi there, we used SketchUp and TwinMotion
Never thought how interesting this topic can be
Future thought: would love a video on instances where planners and architects in Ireland attempted to future proof their designs for a growing society only to have NIMBYs and politicians vetoing those future projects. Prime example is the Luas' intertrack gauge of the Rathmines to Sandyford stretch being built to metro standards (increased distance between lines enabling faster vehicles) to eventually allow for airport connectivity all the way from Sandyford being shut down following local opposition.
I’m still annoyed by this, much of the Green Line between Broombridge and Sandyford is effectively premetro (except the bit in the actual city centre 🙄) and would be relatively straightforward to upgrade, except as you say the sensible preplanning of engineers in the early 00s wasn’t capitalised on
See also the suggestion by Jim O’Callaghan that the metro shouldn’t go to Charlemont. In other European countries, politicians fight for rapid transit to reach their constituencies - rarely does a metro terminate in the city centre without a good geographic reason to do so…
Maith sibh, 👍
great!
Street votes 👍
Ireland should completely replace the existing failed planning system, and prevent people with homes stopping new homes being developed, if an area is zoned for high density housing it should be much easier for propery owners to develop apartments on it, opportunities for blocking new developments should be limited, as long as the planned development complies with development policy it should be allowed. Environmental reasons should not be valid reasons for blocking development, they are just used to justify NIMBYism, almost always these environmental objections are not genuine, and even if they are the right of people to housing and develop on their lands overrides these. All human life impacts on the environment, this is natural and not a bad thing.
There can be ways of integrating the environment into our cities too, and I can't imagine anyone objecting to the lovely images of sustainable architecture :^) it is often cleaner and more pleasant to look at.
i honestly believe nimbyism is largely caused by the people living in the impacted area simply not seeing a direct benefit to them personally, sounds selfish but it is how people work and honestly kinda fair (with fears of gentrification and being priced out of your area are very easy to understand) HOWEVER i think if we show these same people proper incentives like lets say, if you own a home in the area in the same way the people of norway OWN the natural resources, the people of the area OWN that land, so money made from new mid to high-rise developments could be put into a local wealth fund (similer to norways wealth fund they invest oil money with) "friendlyjordies" an australian youtuber had a good line when the "yes" vote sadly didnt go through which was "end of the day people are just worried about the money in their back pocket" that one line has very much changed how i view the way new infrastructer and housing developments are handled.
if people aren't directly involved they are more likely going to be against it and i would argue that's a good thing
copenhagen's model of utilising the fact their land is SO expensive and then utilising that to pay for a new metro is honestly a stroke of genius, could you imagine the infrastructure dublin could build if they utilised the land in the same way, combine the street vote idea and tell those same people "if you go even denser we can use the money to preinstall a whole light metro line increasing the land value further" it could change dublin forever (and every other irish city, further protecting the countries beautiful country side)
???? Global
I think you need to address that immigration is a huge factor driving NIMBYism.
Building homes for someone's children? Sure.
Building homes to facilitate unwanted migration while housing continues to become less and less affordable anyway? I can sympathise with detractors.
we're all humans here, diversity is a strength not something to be afraid of (unless you're xenophobic / racist). YIMBY > NIMBY.
@@weaksauce13 Some cultures are inherently xenophobic and racist, and yet you would do nothing to oppose them. Hypocrite.
Not to mention, this country could do with being a bit more densely populated@@weaksauce13
@@weaksauce13 Absolutely we are all humans, but demand can't keep outpacing supply. Residents pay the localised cost as outlined in the video, but if the immigration rate sustains, then the residents lose faith in the delocalised/systemic benefit. Of course, any sincerely racist person can latch onto this economic argument to advance their bigotry, but that doesn't make the economic reality disappear. Immigration does need to slow until supply catches up.
@weaksauce13 no it's not. If it was, we wouldn't need to be reminded, we would all inherently know.
Amateurs trying to reinvent a better wheel. It is both describing the *leeding obvious and woeful ignorance of what has been tried and worked and why. I note high land value is not mentioned as a cause of the problem. Who is ‘we’. And who or what vested interests are funding the slick production values?. I think we should be told.
Probably George Sorros and Bill Gates. Not everything is a conspiracy. Some people are actually trying to do good in the world.
While people like you just want to hold us back.