Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
underscored

Please Tell Me About The History Of Nimbyism In The Uk

Recommended Posts

At lunch today conversation turned to local development plans and some interesting differing national cultural perspectives came out... The older English people were amazed that I thought their NIMBY views were evil. As in they were in shock and not able to be coherent for a short-while, it seems they have been brainwashed at a deep level that opposing any development is correct. Challenging this view on moral grounds was a bit shaking.

The Europeans, Indians and North Americans all chimed in that they have been amazed at the UKs visceral hatred of all development and the lengths that people take to oppose even small housing developments.

Thinking about it a bit further I started to think back to Lord of the Rings and the "tranquil" little Shire vs industrialised Mordor. This cultural perspective is not a new phenomena, is this something that traces back to the industrial revolution or the enclosures? Does anyone know of any serious evidence based attempt to look at this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clearly The Europeans, Indians and North Americans aren't aware that our greenbelt is sacred land that has never been touched by man or womenkind.

They should educate themselves about our glorious boomer generation and how they are protecting this territory for us all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thinking about it a bit further I started to think back to Lord of the Rings and the "tranquil" little Shire vs industrialised Mordor. This cultural perspective is not a new phenomena, is this something that traces back to the industrial revolution or the enclosures? Does anyone know of any serious evidence based attempt to look at this?

They made that guy that built a hobbit house in some woods destroy it.

Either they prefer Barratt boxes (Just as long as no new ones go up) or they're selfish evil ****s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Local paper had a piece about proposed new development in nearby Mirfield (where Patrick Stewart was born).

Needless to say the local boomer nimby's were in force and had packed into a local hall to protest.

I was quite taken aback by some of the responses on the local rags Facebook wall.

Usually I'm alone in pointing out the silliness and selfishness of the idiot Nimby's but the idea of attacking such views seems to be catching on.

You shouldn't be afraid to 'come out' as an ANTI-Nimby.

'We will fight them on the sacred boomer dog pooping patches of England'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Town and Country Planning Act 1947 is a significant date in the genesis of the Nimby. Nimby DNA must have existed for a good while before that (to produce the Act), but maybe the species took on rabbit multiplication habits with that piece of legislation.

Conservative Nimbies are the ones that get my goat the most. Those that allegedly place family life at the heart of their morality- happy to see others commuting greater distances, spending more time away from the home, with all the societal consequences attributed to the increased incidence of family breakdown that must follow. Plus the essentially forced extraction of wealth via transport costs to boot. What a bunch of *****.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that having a long history like the UK can be great, but it can also be very restrictive, mentally creating a mindset that doesn't like change and wants to preserve the old and familiar.

The trick is maintaining a balance, keeping the best and allowing the rest to evolve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Town and Country Planning Act 1947 is a significant date in the genesis of the Nimby. Nimby DNA must have existed for a good while before that (to produce the Act), but maybe the species took on rabbit multiplication habits with that piece of legislation.

Yes because the TCPA was based on 1930's London Green belt legislation brought in by Tory Chamberlain government. Needless to say when the Tories got back in again after the war, they massively extended the 1947 Act.

Conservatism and Nimbyism go hand in hand, despite attempts to blame an apparently 'socialist measure.'

And the TCPA does hark to central planning, but it did allow several new towns to develop. We should re-invent the Development Corporation.

Home building was popular after war, 'home for heroes' etc. Now you are encroaching on sacred boomer territory.

Edited by aSecureTenant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good question.

The concept of green belts was launched in the 1930's, with the ambition of preventing urban sprawl. It's true that many countries suffer from "ribbon development", where conurbations stretch for miles along a key road but are only a few streets or even a few houses deep.

Green belts took off like wildfire and after the first around London (by the way London's population was actually declining at that time, and was forecast to continue to decline indefinitely due to the move to the suburbs, green belts were primarily designed to prevent suburban sprawl rather than urban sprawl) they quickly spread and I think there are now well over 20 in Britain.

The irony is that most modern planning theory regards green belts as a mistake, they're sometimes referred to as green nooses. Planners today advocate "green wedges", triangles of rural zones coming further into a city to bring the countryside closer to the centre, but with room to expand along key radial roads and transport links.

Problem is that the voting public (chiefly older, chiefly house owners) have fallen in love with green belts and no matter how bad the concept no politician has the stomach to argue the case for dismantling them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My family have lived in Southern England for generations. In my lifetime alone I've seen a transformation that breaks my heart to see, where is it supposed to end? London stretch to the sea in three points of the compass? The quality of existence is far lower than my childhood.

The only solution is to stem the causes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Local paper had a piece about proposed new development in nearby Mirfield (where Patrick Stewart was born).

Needless to say the local boomer nimby's were in force and had packed into a local hall to protest.

I was quite taken aback by some of the responses on the local rags Facebook wall.

Usually I'm alone in pointing out the silliness and selfishness of the idiot Nimby's but the idea of attacking such views seems to be catching on.

You shouldn't be afraid to 'come out' as an ANTI-Nimby.

'We will fight them on the sacred boomer dog pooping patches of England'

My colours are nailed to the mast. Anti-NIMBY, anti-BTL (even the younger ones are doing it where I am) and have explicitly stated I will be emigrating if it gets any worse

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My family have lived in Southern England for generations. In my lifetime alone I've seen a transformation that breaks my heart to see, where is it supposed to end? London stretch to the sea in three points of the compass? The quality of existence is far lower than my childhood.

The only solution is to stem the causes.

If they stopped immigration tomorrow we'd still have a housing crisis with so many living alone and living longer not to mention the immigrant baby boom and those who've arrived in the last 15 years.

I bet if they built a 1 mile circumference of housing from where current housing ends in the London suburbs it'd solve much of the housing problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My family have lived in Southern England for generations. In my lifetime alone I've seen a transformation that breaks my heart to see, where is it supposed to end? London stretch to the sea in three points of the compass? The quality of existence is far lower than my childhood.

The only solution is to stem the causes.

I got lost on a single track road within the M25 last weekend. I came to a flooded river and had to reverse my car 2 miles I looked it up afterwards before I came to a point wide enough to safely 3 point.

I also think we seriously ****ed up doing high rises on the cheap. None of my European friends live in houses, some of them never have. Look at the Barbican that was how high rises were supposed to be, maybe it is time to try again and do it right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good question.

The concept of green belts was launched in the 1930's, with the ambition of preventing urban sprawl. It's true that many countries suffer from "ribbon development", where conurbations stretch for miles along a key road but are only a few streets or even a few houses deep.

Green belts took off like wildfire and after the first around London (by the way London's population was actually declining at that time, and was forecast to continue to decline indefinitely due to the move to the suburbs, green belts were primarily designed to prevent suburban sprawl rather than urban sprawl) they quickly spread and I think there are now well over 20 in Britain.

The irony is that most modern planning theory regards green belts as a mistake, they're sometimes referred to as green nooses. Planners today advocate "green wedges", triangles of rural zones coming further into a city to bring the countryside closer to the centre, but with room to expand along key radial roads and transport links.

Problem is that the voting public (chiefly older, chiefly house owners) have fallen in love with green belts and no matter how bad the concept no politician has the stomach to argue the case for dismantling them.

What your often finding now, is that a developer buys a patch of largish land behind a row of houses, then knocks down 2, 3, or 4 houses that face on to the street, to create access.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure there was a Timeteam episode about an 18th century country mansion whose owner had an entire village knocked down when he built it, as it got in the way of his view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Know your enemy - wikipedia has a useful article on Nimbyism, plenty of references and links:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NIMBY

George Carlin was one of the early adopters!

Let the HPC hive put together a useful collaboration for the case against NIMBY - and not just sarcastic assumptions. If we can't associate effectively in a common purpose, who can? The Daily Express will plaster it on their front page.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thinking about it a bit further I started to think back to Lord of the Rings and the "tranquil" little Shire vs industrialised Mordor. This cultural perspective is not a new phenomena, is this something that traces back to the industrial revolution or the enclosures? Does anyone know of any serious evidence based attempt to look at this?

After the defeat of Sauron, the orc hordes found that they were granted free movement of labour across Middle-Earth. The Shire was known to be full of drunken, sympathetic folk and offer a good quality of life.

When the orc hordes arrived, one of them showed his prowess as a gardner and required only a hobbit a day as sustenance. Sam quickly found himself tossed to the curb. The orc slept in a ditch and was only permitted its own residence once Frodo was able to build a large maisonette to house the orc and 20 of his buddies, charging each of them a hobbit for the privilege of a roof. After a year this cost rose to a hobbit and a half, at which point the orc and his buddies returned to sleeping in a ditch.

One day they just snapped, colluded with Sam and other snubbed hobbi, and burned the Shire to the ground. The Orc hordes and displaced hobbi ventured on to Rivendell in search of greener pastures, whilst the elderly hobbi who hadn't perished were too feeble to rebuild the Shire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After the defeat of Sauron, the orc hordes found that they were granted free movement of labour across Middle-Earth. The Shire was known to be full of drunken, sympathetic folk and offer a good quality of life.

When the orc hordes arrived, one of them showed his prowess as a gardner and required only a hobbit a day as sustenance. Sam quickly found himself tossed to the curb. The orc slept in a ditch and was only permitted its own residence once Frodo was able to build a large maisonette to house the orc and 20 of his buddies, charging each of them a hobbit for the privilege of a roof. After a year this cost rose to a hobbit and a half, at which point the orc and his buddies returned to sleeping in a ditch.

One day they just snapped, colluded with Sam and other snubbed hobbi, and burned the Shire to the ground. The Orc hordes and displaced hobbi ventured on to Rivendell in search of greener pastures, whilst the elderly hobbi who hadn't perished were too feeble to rebuild the Shire.

Nice, but humans are a single species. Maybe the orcs are debtors and the hobbits creditors, and instead of labour you should be talking about capital.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure there was a Timeteam episode about an 18th century country mansion whose owner had an entire village knocked down when he built it, as it got in the way of his view.

Not sure if it's the same one, but I saw something in a documentary last week about a big country house where they moved the village a few miles away when it was built because it was in the way of their garden.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's true that many countries suffer from "ribbon development", where conurbations stretch for miles along a key road but are only a few streets or even a few houses deep.

In what way do they "suffer"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In what way do they "suffer"?

Passers-by suffer because it's ugly. But maybe the inhabitants suffer too because it's more inclined to die away, so there's no prospect of families remaining. Plenty of examples in the American west, and Ireland switched to Bungalow blitz in the '70s.

Contrast it with a European village.

Control v liberty - balance, please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This cultural perspective is not a new phenomena, is this something that traces back to the industrial revolution or the enclosures? Does anyone know of any serious evidence based attempt to look at this?

Deep rooted fear of change? Fear of being near people of a lower social status? Protection of values? Huge sense of entitlement?

On February 16th, 1926 Albert Frampton, the developer of Alexander Crescent, applied to Bromley Council to erect the wall. The application was the result of pressure exerted by residents on Frampton’s estate, who objected to ‘vulgar people’ using their road as a short cut to Bromley town centre. The council declined to take a decision, but the wall went up anyway

...Disputes about the Downham wall raged for nearly a quarter of a century and it was not taken down, by Bromley Council, until 1950.

gated.jpg

http://www.historytoday.com/michael-nelson/gated-communities-class-walls

..constructed a wall across two roads to prevent the Council House tenants living on the other side from being able to use them to reach the main road. The "Cutteslowe Wall" was not demolished until 1959.

d214316a.jpg

d214317a.jpg

d252773a.jpg

Workmen erecting temporary gates after the demolition of Cutteslowe Walls

http://oxfordcockaigne.co.uk/cutteslowe/cutteslowewalls.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My understanding was that modern nimbyism was largely the result of propaganda during the world wars. The government wanted to 'sell' Britain to the population, but the urban/industrial heart of Britain was considered too, well, industrial and urban. So a big push was made with "our green and pleasant land", which had largely been either a work-place for rural workers or a playground for the upper-class and upper-middle-class.

Post-second world war, massive building was required, but the propaganda had worked too well, so the 1947 act was designed to both facilitate building whilst reassuring everyone that there were distinct limits to development.

Here's a documentary on it (and the source for my rather shaky analysis) - well worth listening to.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01j2bzr/Archive_on_4_Houses_v_Fields/

Which is a better use of our land? A beautiful green field, or a human home? We have long tied ourselves in knots trying to answer this question. Anne McElvoy ploughs the BBC archive to unearth the tangled roots of one this country's great, eternal inner conflicts.

Anne listens to a stinging mid-century polemic against new 'ribbon developments'. And she finds out which writer was so incensed at suburban sprawl that she burned cardboard models of suburbs in her garden.

But she also hears interviews with those who had managed to flee the slums and who were enraptured by the fresh air on new estates. One ex-EastEnder is agog simply at the fact that she has running water upstairs.

In this new, planning-friendly world, Prime Minister Winston Churchill broadcast to the nation on the virtues of the new emergency pre-fabricated houses - complete with "excellent baths". He expresses impatience with those who would "plan every acre" to ensure the landscape was not spoiled.

But she also hears the rough reception that greeted the Minister who ventured to Stevenage to extol the virtues of the coming new town.

This opposition to new building on ancient fields came to a new crisis in the 1980s when the boom in the south east led to extraordinary tensions. Environment Secretary Nicholas Ridley backed plans to build new settlements in the Home Counties. Protestors burned him in effigy in a Hampshire field.

And with the Coalition Government trying to encourage development while empowering local communities, Anne asks Planning Minister Nicholas Boles how he is trying to resolve the struggle between houses and fields.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they stopped immigration tomorrow we'd still have a housing crisis with so many living alone and living longer not to mention the immigrant baby boom and those who've arrived in the last 15 years.

I bet if they built a 1 mile circumference of housing from where current housing ends in the London suburbs it'd solve much of the housing problem.

If immigration was stopped by leaving the EU then what do you think would happen to the millions of Brits living abroad? Many would return to the UK occupying houses and add to the shortage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   220 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.