Adjustment is a two-way process. Every organic relationship is constantly adjusting through two-way feedback.
Shoes adjust to your feet. Laces adjust to the arch, the insole dents where the foot bulges, the outer edge stretches in places.
A building or development adjusts to the desires and needs of its residents. Streets are vacated or added or widened, windows are altered, siding is repainted, rooms are added or subtracted.
This is an interesting phenomenon which is often true, but I would definitely not agree that people are necessarally okay with an existing development, or anything else that was once new. They might be fine with it after the fact, or not, but once a development has been built removing it is just no longer an option in this society under normal circumstances. Those who are most uncomfortable with existing developments are likely to leave an area, which is reflected in greater net domestic outmigration away from places like coastal California or New England.
California since 1990 in particular but also the northeast over a longer period, have lost millions of people through domestic net outmigration (California alone has lost well over 4 million). This is for various reasons of course, including high living expenses, various forms of displacement (labor market and social as well as cost related), politics and other factors. But there has also been a general pattern of denser areas loosing in terms of domestic migration and many sight high density as one factor in their decision, even while others are actively attracted to dense urban environments.
It's much more expensive on much of the West Coast and Northeast both because overall population is still growing for the most part (albeit very slowly) from international migration and births, and because of the ongoing affects of consentrated wealth as well as real estate speculation by wealthy investors, but without anything like adequate development of new housing to accommodate growth.
This is do to nimbyism, zoning laws, stringent environmental and other regulations, and other factors including natural ones such as the physical environment (the latter being a huge factor on the west coast in particular). Those moving in are also far more wealthy and affluent then those leaving on average.
The phenomenon your trope refers to is just a small part of NIMBYism, which should be understood as an ideology. It's an ideology of the family, home, planning, and suburbanism.
The sneakers give the answer.
Adjustment is a two-way process. Every organic relationship is constantly adjusting through two-way feedback.
Shoes adjust to your feet. Laces adjust to the arch, the insole dents where the foot bulges, the outer edge stretches in places.
A building or development adjusts to the desires and needs of its residents. Streets are vacated or added or widened, windows are altered, siding is repainted, rooms are added or subtracted.
This is an interesting phenomenon which is often true, but I would definitely not agree that people are necessarally okay with an existing development, or anything else that was once new. They might be fine with it after the fact, or not, but once a development has been built removing it is just no longer an option in this society under normal circumstances. Those who are most uncomfortable with existing developments are likely to leave an area, which is reflected in greater net domestic outmigration away from places like coastal California or New England.
High prices seem like a much more reasonable explanation for outmigration (if the built environment is so bad, then how come it's so expensive?)
California since 1990 in particular but also the northeast over a longer period, have lost millions of people through domestic net outmigration (California alone has lost well over 4 million). This is for various reasons of course, including high living expenses, various forms of displacement (labor market and social as well as cost related), politics and other factors. But there has also been a general pattern of denser areas loosing in terms of domestic migration and many sight high density as one factor in their decision, even while others are actively attracted to dense urban environments.
It's much more expensive on much of the West Coast and Northeast both because overall population is still growing for the most part (albeit very slowly) from international migration and births, and because of the ongoing affects of consentrated wealth as well as real estate speculation by wealthy investors, but without anything like adequate development of new housing to accommodate growth.
This is do to nimbyism, zoning laws, stringent environmental and other regulations, and other factors including natural ones such as the physical environment (the latter being a huge factor on the west coast in particular). Those moving in are also far more wealthy and affluent then those leaving on average.
The phenomenon your trope refers to is just a small part of NIMBYism, which should be understood as an ideology. It's an ideology of the family, home, planning, and suburbanism.