is urban infill a bad thing? only if it's NIMBY!

I was walking to a local restaurant with my wife the other day when we stopped and talked to one of our neighbors. Jim (not his real name).  He has a beautiful house, a 1920s bungalow, with a 1.7 acre tract of developable land at the back.  He commented that he and his neighbors are planning on fighting future development by getting signatures from neighbors, putting in footpaths, and preserving the urban stream.

5 years ago, I would have helped Jim (I am a staunch environmentalist), but we discussed something in our sustainability seminar the other day that gave me pause, even challenging my assumptions about urban development.  We were studying sprawl and the negative impacts of urban sprawl including air quality impacts, increased runoff and water quality degradation, increased energy demand, and habitat loss.  Sprawl is worse than compact urban forms in all of these categories so efforts must be made towards more compact urban grown forms.

The reason: population growth.  It is real.  (See the post above).  If we do not fill in existing urban parcels, that development will happen at the periphery of the city resulting in more driving and traffic.  Sprawl.  I love my neighbors, but the NIMBY-ism that is apparent in his position is not a tenable position for everyone in the city to take.  I should know: I got new neighbors between 2010 and 2012 as low income housing came in: 23 new houses on a 9 acre vacant lot were built right across the street from me.

The most ironic thing: Jim used to live next to me but moved up the street to escape the new construction.