'Moms with Strollers' versus 'Mega-prison': Challenges of Managing NIMBY Conflicts: a Case Study from Ulan-Ude

Abstract

This article explores the main factors in the emergence of conflicts over the construction of large infrastructure projects and hinder their effective resolution. It is commonly believed that urban spatial conflicts involve two main sides: coalitions of business and government interested in territorial development (“neoliberal growth machines”), and activists who seek to protect urban spaces from the market-driven logic of profit maximization. However, the uncompromising stance of activists living in close proximity to the sites of contested development projects is often problematic from the perspective of other interested parties, including residents of other neighborhoods. Activists’ actions following the “not in my backyard” (NIMBY) logic often obstruct the construction of facilities that are important for residents elsewhere, ultimately leading to larger-scale problems (shortages of affordable housing, obstacles to the development of renewable energy projects, etc.). In such cases, conflicts are extremely difficult to resolve, not only because of the insufficient involvement of local residents in urban planning. A key problem is that investors and city managers often fail to position development projects as having genuine public value. Stakeholders directly interested in these projects are often poorly involved or not involved at all in communication with residents, complicating the search for compromise. The article, based on an expert survey, describes a conflict over the construction of a Federal Penitentiary Service facility. Using the example of resistance to the construction of a mega-prison in Ulan-Ude, the article highlights typical problems that arise when attempting to resolve urban spatial conflicts over large infrastructure projects in Russia.