I often write about the natural human impulses and feelings behind what we call “NIMBYism,” based on the acronym NIMBY, for “not in my backyard.” These are the people who show up at public meetings or hearings to oppose new construction projects, for a variety of reasons which, from person to person, often contradict each other. Within urbanist discourse, NIMBYs are the bad guys.

I’ve written before, however, about the contrast between ordinary people who dislike change or prefer what they know, versus “professional NIMBYs” who set aside serious time and effort to oppose things. Check out this piece in Strong Towns, for example, and check out the related reading links.

I come back to this theme a lot because I consider myself an urbanist, but I also consider myself something of a “natural NIMBY”—someone who simply feels a certain bias for what already exists, and feels no particular need to change things. My understanding of urbanism has helped me see past this tendency, when the change being proposed is in fact good and welcome change, or when there is nothing more at work in the opposition than a sort of oppositional instinct.

One thing I’ve realized is that it’s useful to look at tendencies that aren’t NIMBYism, but that kind of resemble it, in order to understand the mindset.

Consider, for example, how almost every time a brand releases a new logo, or a social media company redesigns its user interface, customers react negatively. In some cases, the innovation actually makes things worse, and resistance is probably a good thing. But most of the time, it just doesn’t really matter one way or the other. I’ve felt this myself. For example, I absolutely hated a Facebook redesign a decade ago—but within a few weeks, I had already forgotten what the old one looked like. If they’d changed it back, I would have complained again!

Back at Thanksgiving, at my parents’ house, I was in the kitchen and I noticed a little tile that was propped up against the backsplash, resting on a windowsill in front of the sink. Next to it was a little wooden turtle with a bobbing head, a souvenir from a vacation to California back in the early 2000s. They kind of clutter up the windowsill—perhaps they should have been moved years ago. But they hadn’t been, and I could remember those exact trinkets in their exact positions, back when I was a little kid.

The “natural NIMBY” in me would keep them there forever, sheer time having imbued something ordinary and meaningless with a comforting sense of stability and permanence. (I wrote at much more length about this feeling here, too.) And yet, if they were gone on my next visit, I probably wouldn’t care. It’s interesting how invested we can get in things that really don’t even mean that much to us.

Being an urbanist, to me, is more about perception and ways of thinking than about policy. Yes, I like walkable, mixed-use neighborhoods. No, I don’t think we should have to drive almost everywhere. But I’ve also learned to weigh the familiar things I already know against future improvements that could be; to see people as a resource; to accept a little bit of inconvenience if it means more opportunity and more of other things I value.

I’m sure that a good deal of what we call NIMBYism is really something akin to my desire that that wooden turtle and scrap of tile sit on that windowsill forever. And I’m hopeful that many “ordinary” people can also see their own thought processes more clearly, and even, in some cases, rethink them.

Related Reading:

NIMBYs and Neocons

NIMBYism and Existence Value

Please consider upgrading to a paid subscription to help support this newsletter. You’ll get a weekend subscribers-only post, plus full access to the archive of over 200 posts and growing. And you’ll help ensure more material like this!

Share