Which metro’s native inhabitants are the most anti-growth? (best, cost, state)

[Need4Camaro]

Between the following metros in the poll, which metros native inhabitants would be the most resistant toward growth and apt against planning for population increase? Note that the contenders do not necessarily have to be unsuccessful at planning and delegating for population increases, but rather its natives would be most against it.

Atlanta
Austin
Birmingham
Boston
Charlotte
Chicago
Dallas
Denver
Houston
Indianapolis
Jacksonville FL
Miami
Nashville
Orlando
Phoenix
Portland
Salt Lake City
San Francisco
Seattle
Tampa

[Duderino]

Among those options, far and away it's Boston, with San Francisco following relatively close behind.

Seattle, Chicago and Portland would likely be higher on the NIMBY scale, but certainly below the former two.

The rest, I would presume, have residents that are mostly apathetic or even pro-growth.

[Need4Camaro]

I’ve always been trying to gauge where Boston really falls in this category. I know Boston has ordinances that preserve its city character but consequently reduces the amount of housing to be capable of being built there which escalates its real estate values. I believe SF is similar in this regard but also with many more natural barriers and sky high construction costs.

Austin is shockingly anti-growth as well. I’ve been wondering how it stacks up to the rest of the country in this regard.

[Heel82]

Not Charlotte

[mhays25]

Seattle and Portland are against sprawl, via voter-tested legislation. But we're not anti-growth.

Both have state and local policies that make infill reasonably easy in nodes all over town. The core cities (including Tacoma as of the other day) allow multiple units on SFR sites.

We've bought into the notion that density is necessary for affordability and to reduce sprawl pressures.

PS, I'm not sure what "apt" means in the OP.

[Boston Shudra]

Originally Posted by Need4Camaro

I’ve always been trying to gauge where Boston really falls in this category.

Since the Boston area is like an archipelago of small cities and towns with strong local control, it varies a lot by municipality. For example, Somerville and Everett have reputations of being relatively pro-development compared to the region as a whole while Milton and Saugus are pretty fiercely anti-development. Boston itself falls somewhere in the middle with maybe a slight lean towards pro-development compared to Eastern MA as a whole.

[18Montclair]

San Francisco. By far.

We are the biggest hypocrites in the country as far as bitching&moaning about housing affordability but then fight tooth and nail against new housing projects in our own areas----I am over it.

[cranberrysaus]

Atlanta's suburbs are hopelessly balkanized into small cities that have sprung up to try and resist the city's expansion. They're the reason we haven't had an outward MARTA expansion in decades, and the mere proposal of an outer beltway was enough to tank a governor's career.

[2Easy]

Originally Posted by mhays25

Seattle and Portland are against sprawl, via voter-tested legislation. But we're not anti-growth.

So no NIMBYs or lawsuits that cancel or delay developments?

In any event, I’d argue that’s still anti-growth in a way, just the inverse of most places. In LA, NIMBYs are opposed to increased density (among many other things). Some are opposed to building farther and farther out, but more so in an academic, sustainability type of way. Not passionate and personal like opposing an apartment building proposed for your block. Despite the best reasons or intentions they’re both kind of shutting the door on options for the people that come later.

[BostonBornMassMade]

Boston. Mostly due to the glut of wealthy suburbs near Boston. Unlike SF, there are not as many logical reasons to bar construction but they do anyway. As Shudra said before eme it varies from town to town, city to city.