2024-05-05 13:37:59
Demonstrations against deep storage, referendums on wind farms, petitions against massive construction. Few larger constructions in the Czech Republic go without citizen protests. Some investors downplay them as evidence of the NIMBY effect. In other words, people don’t want new buildings “in their backyard”. But the state and developers are often to blame for the resistance of citizens, says geographer Radim Perlín in an interview for Aktuálně.cz.
We often hear the acronym NIMBY lately. And this is especially in connection with protests against constructions such as wind farms, underground storage facilities or developers’ projects. What is hidden under these letters?
The abbreviation comes from the English phrase “not in my backyard”. It has appeared in Anglo-Saxon literature since the 1980s. It expresses the resistance of the citizens towards the building, which is generally perceived as necessary, but no one wants to live next to it. These are typically highways, railways or industrial buildings.
Protests against these buildings are highly publicized. People often react to them with the opinion that construction is delayed unnecessarily and that nothing will ever be built in the Czech Republic. Is this impression justified?
That doesn’t apply. It builds. The feeling is caused by the fact that we have not been used to a functioning civil society for a long time. It only started to form here in the 1990s, despite the negative view of Václav Klaus. He argued that those who are not involved in politics have no say in it.
Only now are we getting to a state that is quite normal in Western countries, where it is necessary to discuss the intentions with an active public. And when investors learn this, they are more likely to succeed.
Developers often speak unflatteringly of people who object to a plan and downplay their objections. We hear words like nimbystes or nimbysmus. Is this fair to the protesters?
It’s as fair as calling any developer a criminal. There will always be people on both sides who will speak very disrespectfully of their opponents, will not be able to agree or will contradict each other in various ways.
It is often true, for example, that people call for the modernization of brownfields, but when construction is to begin in a specific location, the same group of people disagrees. In general, it is very easy to protest, but more difficult to find a common solution.
Is there any way to prevent the NIMBY effect?
Of course there are tools. And that in negotiations. A compromise must be sought between three entities: the developer, the public administration and local activists. Let’s imagine that we have an old industrial site somewhere on Libeňský ostrov in Prague. First we have to decide what we want to be there. And to seek an agreement between the public administration and local residents. If we wish to have a residence there, or rather a business and the like. And the agreement must be embodied, for example, in a change to the territorial plan.
Only then can we come to the developer. We must not do it in such a way that an international architectural competition is announced for the reconstruction of some brownfield and it brings us a brilliant idea and a result that will make everyone happy.
No one can come and say, “He has planned a beautiful new city for you.” This is the approach typical of some architects. “I’m professionally educated, you’re not, so don’t mess with me.” That’s the road to hell. And the developer can’t expect everyone to sit on their ass from his proposals.
If, on the other hand, local activists block any idea and want the developer to build and pay for a playground for all children far and wide, so that 80 percent of the apartments, which he hands over to the municipality for free, will be social, he will do nothing at all. He is an entrepreneur, he has to pay for the construction. Unrealistic expectations have unrealistic results.
Do you have a scary case in mind?
A classic example of a completely unmanaged process is the project of the National Library on Letná by architect Jan Kaplický. They made the public aware of this only when the decision had already been made. But that’s not Kaplický’s fault, that’s a matter of poor project management. If the reason why we want to place the library there and what capacity it should have had been discussed at the time when the competition was entered, then perhaps the degree of resistance to such a futuristic and unconventional building would have been completely different.
- Radim Perlín is a university teacher, head of the Rural Geography Research Center at the Faculty of Natural Sciences of Charles University.
- He is a member of the ODS, he previously worked as a representative in Prague 2. In 2021, he ran for the Chamber of Deputies, he was in 32nd place among the candidates of the Spolu coalition.
- He is a member of the Czech Chamber of Architects, co-founded the Society for Rural Renewal, is a member of the Association for Urbanism and Spatial Planning and the Czech Geographical Society.
Photo: Archive of Radim Perlín
We are talking about a 17 year old dispute. Do such cases still happen?
Of course yes. It was not very successful, for example, in the architectural competition for the reconstruction of the main railway station. But I have to say that otherwise I have a good feeling about Prague. The situation is changing in small steps. Smarter developers understand that it is more efficient to break potential spikes at the beginning than to let them grow into the sky and then painstakingly work your way through them.
Even from the side of the public administration, the shift is clear. A big role is played by the Institute of Planning and Development, which tries to correct the public and professional debate. I want to be an optimist and say that even the public understands that not everyone who wants to build something is a criminal.
So when was it possible to avoid protracted disputes between the developer and the locals?
This is, for example, the discussion about the tram line on Wenceslas Square. For example, the Sekyra Group developer at the Smíchov railway station was very successful. This is a large-scale project, against which there were initially very strong protests. The discussion was lengthy, but thanks to the activity of municipal politicians and the friendliness of the developer, the plan was resolved.
The state has to decide somewhere. But we have to save money with that
But we are talking about private projects. What about the intentions of the state? In Modřice near Brno, people are protesting against the high-speed line because it is going to cut off a piece of their garden. For many years, the construction of a radioactive waste repository has been feared in several places.
With some constructions, you simply need to make a decision. It is in the interest of the state that we connect Vienna, Prague and Berlin with a high-speed line, so that we are in the heart of Europe or that a good railway line leads to the airport. It is not in his interest to block it for the sake of the horticultural colony. A state will need a nuclear repository, regardless of whether people near it have rational or irrational reasons to reject it. It just has to be somewhere.
They have to be very careful with these things. And there must always be intense negotiation. But in the end, the decision will always be on one side.
I assume that there must be a very sensitive discussion about these buildings as well.
Yes, and it must be very carefully conducted and all steps properly explained. I am, for example, a big supporter of declaring the Křivoklátsko National Park. But the way it goes about it is absolutely devastating. At the beginning, there should have been a discussion with citizens about the advantages and disadvantages. Then the boundaries of the park were to be drawn. They did the exact opposite.
The opposition to the national park is therefore completely understandable, although factually irrational. They learned it as a given. First came the result and then the discussion.
But the state should have come and told the people: Let’s agree on the conditions under which there could be a national park or a high-speed line here. Whether to build an anti-noise wall, where the underpass. Look for a deal. We will build something here and you will get something from it.
We are not in the 19th century when someone drew a line on a map and that was it. We have a civil society that is actively involved and wants to protest. And that’s the typical NIMBY effect. We all want it, we all need it, but no one would want it behind their humps.