On the second day of construction, we received our first not-in-my-backyard (NIMBY) response to our construction. And it was a doozy. For those unfamiliar with the term, NIMBY refers to the response sometimes given by neighbourhoods and communities to proposed development. In some cases, they don’t oppose the development in principle, they just don’t want it in their backyards. Developments subject to NIMBY opposition typically include low-income housing, group homes, dumps, and prisons. Infill constructions like ours — new buildings on previously undeveloped sites in existing neighbourhoods — are also excellent targets for NIMBY objections. While infill construction makes more efficient use of land, existing infrastructure and services, and reduces the pressure to develop outside of the city, it can also be disruptive to neighbours who have to endure construction very close by, and force them to accommodate changes they would prefer not to see.
In fact, NIMBYism is one of the biggest, if not the biggest, impediments to infill development. It’s what keeps sane people from doing what we’re doing. People don’t like change as a rule, and are especially unforgiving to change that affects their property. They worry the new construction will compromise the character of their neighbourhood, decrease their property value, generally inconvenience them, or, in the case of tall buildings like ours, restrict their light and privacy. Residents can become used to having an empty lot near them or beside them, and confuse this preference with a right to continue having it.
As we’ve learned, a seemingly rational person can become an emotional, offensive, and abusive NIMBY beast when confronted with an unwanted development. Unfortunately, reason and mutual accommodation aren’t possible when people respond on this level. (That sounds pretty patronizing, I know. My tone is probably what prompted our NIMBY resident to slam the phone down on us after berating and insulting us. Apparently I am no Dr. Phil.) Our dreams of warm, neighbourly friendships full of dinner parties and cookie exchanges might never be our reality (at least in one case) but there you have it.
What made this response a bit harder to take, even it is only one really negative response so far, was that fitting into the neighbourhood was one of our main considerations during the design process. Our lot is in one of Ottawa’s oldest communities — a beautiful, well-treed neighbourhood with many older brick homes with porches. To preserve the character of this great neighbourhood and others like it in Ottawa, a heritage committee reviews building applications and ensures that proposed construction projects fit into the streetscape. These restrictions are in addition to general city building requirements and cover things like exterior cladding (materials, colours), profile, and general style. Our designers worked with one of the city’s heritage planners to ensure that our house meets these requirements, and it does.
A little history: Before we bought our lot, another three-story home was approved to be built on it but never proceeded. When our designers first met with the city’s heritage planner early in our design process, they saw the originally approved plans for the site. We all agreed that it would be simplest to stay within the style of the approved plan and avoid having to resubmit new plans to the heritage committee for approval, which could take months. Our designers met with the planner and showed her our design until she was satisfied that our slight modifications still met the conditions of approval of the original design. Ironically, our design is actually one third smaller than the original. But “it could have been worse” is not exactly music to a NIMBY’s ears.
So, in a nutshell, our design meets the city’s general building requirements, as well as the very specific requirements of the heritage committee. Compliance with these types of guidelines, however, is of no interest to a NIMBY neighbour who can’t see beyond his or her property line. The response we’ve received, although by no means widespread, has been a very difficult one to handle, and will likely continue to be so. If we continue to get responses like this one, our house may come at a steeper cost than we had thought — not to the neighbourhood or the environment, but to our personal relationships with the people we’d hoped would become our friends.
Here’s hoping for a more neighbourly tomorrow.
In fact, NIMBYism is one of the biggest, if not the biggest, impediments to infill development. It’s what keeps sane people from doing what we’re doing. People don’t like change as a rule, and are especially unforgiving to change that affects their property. They worry the new construction will compromise the character of their neighbourhood, decrease their property value, generally inconvenience them, or, in the case of tall buildings like ours, restrict their light and privacy. Residents can become used to having an empty lot near them or beside them, and confuse this preference with a right to continue having it.
As we’ve learned, a seemingly rational person can become an emotional, offensive, and abusive NIMBY beast when confronted with an unwanted development. Unfortunately, reason and mutual accommodation aren’t possible when people respond on this level. (That sounds pretty patronizing, I know. My tone is probably what prompted our NIMBY resident to slam the phone down on us after berating and insulting us. Apparently I am no Dr. Phil.) Our dreams of warm, neighbourly friendships full of dinner parties and cookie exchanges might never be our reality (at least in one case) but there you have it.
What made this response a bit harder to take, even it is only one really negative response so far, was that fitting into the neighbourhood was one of our main considerations during the design process. Our lot is in one of Ottawa’s oldest communities — a beautiful, well-treed neighbourhood with many older brick homes with porches. To preserve the character of this great neighbourhood and others like it in Ottawa, a heritage committee reviews building applications and ensures that proposed construction projects fit into the streetscape. These restrictions are in addition to general city building requirements and cover things like exterior cladding (materials, colours), profile, and general style. Our designers worked with one of the city’s heritage planners to ensure that our house meets these requirements, and it does.
A little history: Before we bought our lot, another three-story home was approved to be built on it but never proceeded. When our designers first met with the city’s heritage planner early in our design process, they saw the originally approved plans for the site. We all agreed that it would be simplest to stay within the style of the approved plan and avoid having to resubmit new plans to the heritage committee for approval, which could take months. Our designers met with the planner and showed her our design until she was satisfied that our slight modifications still met the conditions of approval of the original design. Ironically, our design is actually one third smaller than the original. But “it could have been worse” is not exactly music to a NIMBY’s ears.
So, in a nutshell, our design meets the city’s general building requirements, as well as the very specific requirements of the heritage committee. Compliance with these types of guidelines, however, is of no interest to a NIMBY neighbour who can’t see beyond his or her property line. The response we’ve received, although by no means widespread, has been a very difficult one to handle, and will likely continue to be so. If we continue to get responses like this one, our house may come at a steeper cost than we had thought — not to the neighbourhood or the environment, but to our personal relationships with the people we’d hoped would become our friends.
Here’s hoping for a more neighbourly tomorrow.
4 comments:
That sucks. Day 2 no less. I hope your NIMBY will get over their trouble with change and bring you the cookies you're hoping for.
We do too. Thanks, Donna. Check out John's happier post on meeting another one of our neighbours last night. That perked me up, for sure.
I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall during that conversation. Without getting into all the nasty details, what was the jist of this jerk's objection? (Some people are just born to be pains in the butt.) For the record, we like what we've seen of the design. Perhaps your neighbour would have prefered a parking lot?
The chief complaint from our NIMBY was regarding the height of the house (three stories in the back), which she thinks will steal all of "her" sun. We just got the results of a sun study our excellent designer produced for us to verify this, and we're very pleased to see that our house will have very little effect on her yard in the spring and fall, no effect in the summer at all (!), and a greater effect in winter, along with our other two neighbours. Last I checked, though, gardening season ended in the winter, anyway. We may share this information with her, but it will make no difference, unfortunately. Her mind is made up.
Post a Comment