If you’ve ever followed a local planning meeting or community Facebook group, you’ve probably heard the term NIMBY — short for “Not In My Backyard.” NIMBYs are residents who oppose new developments, especially housing, near where they live. In Richmond Hill, for instance, one proposal for a 227-unit, seven-storey condominium on Elgin Mills Road West drew vocal opposition, with residents citing traffic, parking and neighbourhood character concerns.
How We Created NIMBYs
For decades, municipalities across North America used exclusionary zoning to separate homes, businesses, and industries — often reserving entire neighborhoods for single-family houses only. Over time, residents in these areas were given a disproportionate say in local planning decisions. It was a way for city leaders to keep the peace with politically active homeowners who wanted their neighborhoods to remain unchanged.
The unintended consequence? We built a culture of permission-based development, where every new proposal must survive a gauntlet of community consultations and public hearings — often dominated by those with the most to lose, or at least the most to say.
The Endless Battle: NIMBYs vs. YIMBYs
In recent years, housing advocates and YIMBYs (“Yes In My Backyard”) have emerged as the counterforce, pushing for more homes in more places. But sometimes, this movement gets caught in its own trap. In their zeal to promote density, YIMBYs often focus on maximalist projects — tall apartment buildings in neighborhoods made up entirely of single-family homes.
While these proposals may make sense on paper, they can inflame local opposition, reinforcing NIMBY fears about traffic, parking, or “neighborhood character.” The result is predictable gridlock: NIMBYs dig in, YIMBYs double down, and very few homes actually get built.
As Chuck Marohn, founder of Strong Towns, often argues, this dynamic isn’t productive. It turns urban development into a zero-sum game, where each side treats the other as the main obstacle rather than a potential partner.
Why High-Density “Shock” Projects Backfire
Even if that one high-density building does get approved, it can have an unintended side effect. Suddenly, land values around it skyrocket, making any smaller, incremental projects financially impossible. Instead of triggering a healthy cycle of gradual infill, the neighborhood gets stuck — stagnant, overpriced, and politically polarized.
The Strong Towns Alternative: Build Incrementally
Strong Towns advocates for a different approach: incremental development. Instead of jumping from a single-family house to a six-story tower overnight, communities can allow gentle density — duplexes, triplexes, corner stores, small apartment houses.
This kind of small-scale growth does three things:
1. It doesn’t trigger panic. Incremental changes feel familiar and manageable. Residents can see how small improvements make their neighborhoods more vibrant without overwhelming them.
2. It keeps land values stable. When growth happens gradually, no one development distorts the entire market.
3. It’s politically sustainable. Small wins build trust — and trust builds momentum for more housing over time.
Rebuilding Trust, One Block at a Time
If we want to solve the housing crisis, we can’t just build more — we have to build smarter. That means shifting from a mindset of confrontation to one of collaboration, and from “big, fast, and controversial” to “small, steady, and continuous.”
Avoiding new NIMBYs doesn’t mean silencing residents — it means showing them that change can be good, that growth can be gradual, and that neighborhoods can evolve without losing what makes them special.
That’s how we stop fighting over backyards — and start building better towns, together.