When adding mixed uses to a longtime leafy suburb (single family homes only), there will be benefits for residents. When the first cafe is built, there will be a place that people can walk to for coffee dates or friend meet-ups. When the first licensed bistro is built, there will be a place that pals can walk to for a beer and a burger. When the first low-rise apartment building is built, there will be smaller, less expensive housing units in the neighborhood, places for retired couples to move to (thus freeing up their five-bedroom house for a young family), or for a young, early career person (who can't yet afford a big house) to move to.
As much as I support your mixed land use arguments, I think it's important to analyze and address NIMBY concerns associated with each of the new mixed land use examples that were given.
Let's start with the lowest-impact example--the neighborhood's first cafe. It's a relatively low-impact example, because it's not licensed (so there's no risk of drunken, noisy patrons). As well, most cafes are only open during the day, so it won't create traffic congestion or noise in the evening. However, even this quiet café will have negative impacts on the houses immediately around it. Let's say the cafe has excellent coffee and tasty, fresh baked goods, so as the only location in the neighborhood, it attracts a steady flow of cars. Local residents now face delays in their commutes and the on-street parking is filled with patrons on both sides of the streets. This leads to nearby residents complaining about the cafe at a neighborhood meeting. The cafe-loving residents who live many blocks from the cafe get to enjoy the coffee and muffins, but don't experience the impacts on their street.
A few streets down, the neighborhood gets its first licensed bistro. As with the cafe, it proves to be a hit in the neighborhood, as now you can walk to get a beer (and walk home without incurred a DUI charge). However, the residents who live right by the bistro are upset at the increased traffic, on-street parking, and noise from patrons talking loudly on the patio. As well, there are complaints about patrons talking loudly as they leave the bar at last call.
With the neighborhood's first apartment building, the developers provide one parking space for each unit, but most couples have two cars and couples with college-age children even have three vehicles. As a result, the on-street parking around the apartment is always full, leading to concerns from the single family home dwellers, who used to have lots of on-street parking available for their second and third cars (and their visitors). As well, homeowners near the new apartment point to traffic studies showing an increase in traffic associated with the new apartment.
As a YIMBY, I support mixed land use and zoning deregulation. But we need to acknowledge that adding mixed land uses will negatively impact some existing residents and find ways to mitigate or resolve those issues.
For the new cafe and licensed bistro, one mitigation measure would be a limit on the number of tables/seats and on opening hours. As well, there could be a limit on how many on-street parking spaces cafe or bistro users could use, to ensure that nearby residents can still have a spot for guests to park (the implementation of this would be more challenging, but perhaps some spots could have signs up indicating that they are for non-cafe/non-bistro use only).
For the new apartment building, there are two issues that were examined: crowded street parking near the building and increased traffic. If the apartment building was developed alongside a mixed transit plan (bike path to light rail stations; new bus stops aligned with apartment resident needs; car-share parking added for "pay by use" cars), perhaps there would be less issues with apartment dwellers adding traffic and stored vehicles on the nearby streets.
When adding mixed uses to a longtime leafy suburb (single family homes only), there will be benefits for residents. When the first cafe is built, there will be a place that people can walk to for coffee dates or friend meet-ups. When the first licensed bistro is built, there will be a place that pals can walk to for a beer and a burger. When the first low-rise apartment building is built, there will be smaller, less expensive housing units in the neighborhood, places for retired couples to move to (thus freeing up their five-bedroom house for a young family), or for a young, early career person (who can't yet afford a big house) to move to.
As much as I support your mixed land use arguments, I think it's important to analyze and address NIMBY concerns associated with each of the new mixed land use examples that were given.
Let's start with the lowest-impact example--the neighborhood's first cafe. It's a relatively low-impact example, because it's not licensed (so there's no risk of drunken, noisy patrons). As well, most cafes are only open during the day, so it won't create traffic congestion or noise in the evening. However, even this quiet café will have negative impacts on the houses immediately around it. Let's say the cafe has excellent coffee and tasty, fresh baked goods, so as the only location in the neighborhood, it attracts a steady flow of cars. Local residents now face delays in their commutes and the on-street parking is filled with patrons on both sides of the streets. This leads to nearby residents complaining about the cafe at a neighborhood meeting. The cafe-loving residents who live many blocks from the cafe get to enjoy the coffee and muffins, but don't experience the impacts on their street.
A few streets down, the neighborhood gets its first licensed bistro. As with the cafe, it proves to be a hit in the neighborhood, as now you can walk to get a beer (and walk home without incurred a DUI charge). However, the residents who live right by the bistro are upset at the increased traffic, on-street parking, and noise from patrons talking loudly on the patio. As well, there are complaints about patrons talking loudly as they leave the bar at last call.
With the neighborhood's first apartment building, the developers provide one parking space for each unit, but most couples have two cars and couples with college-age children even have three vehicles. As a result, the on-street parking around the apartment is always full, leading to concerns from the single family home dwellers, who used to have lots of on-street parking available for their second and third cars (and their visitors). As well, homeowners near the new apartment point to traffic studies showing an increase in traffic associated with the new apartment.
As a YIMBY, I support mixed land use and zoning deregulation. But we need to acknowledge that adding mixed land uses will negatively impact some existing residents and find ways to mitigate or resolve those issues.
For the new cafe and licensed bistro, one mitigation measure would be a limit on the number of tables/seats and on opening hours. As well, there could be a limit on how many on-street parking spaces cafe or bistro users could use, to ensure that nearby residents can still have a spot for guests to park (the implementation of this would be more challenging, but perhaps some spots could have signs up indicating that they are for non-cafe/non-bistro use only).
For the new apartment building, there are two issues that were examined: crowded street parking near the building and increased traffic. If the apartment building was developed alongside a mixed transit plan (bike path to light rail stations; new bus stops aligned with apartment resident needs; car-share parking added for "pay by use" cars), perhaps there would be less issues with apartment dwellers adding traffic and stored vehicles on the nearby streets.