Nimbyism is the result of bad planning decisions, suggests an article in the i newspaper. The example quoted is the crumbling Hammersmith flyover. Instead of going for the obvious and replacing it with a flashy new flyover, Hammersmith proposes a “fly-under” (ie, a tunnel). The costs would be high, the construction work would be disruptive – but it would reunite an area split by traffic and give it back to residents, and at least some of the cost would be recouped by selling off regained land. And, although a big planning initiative like this would be expected to kick off the usual public protests, it has widespread local support.
Planners should learn from this, suggests the writer. Nimbyism should not be written off as a knee-jerk reaction to any new development, whatever it may be. It is “born of the experience that new development is far more likely to benefit the developer (in profit) and the council (in increased revenues) than anyone who actually lives there.” But if a project can be seen to be imaginative and beneficial, it can get the public on-side.
Food for thought?