Probably, but I suspect we can trace the triumph of NIMBYism to the baby-boom reaching the "get off my lawn" age.
>I disagree. Simply look at Europe or historical districts in the US. Its definitely not implausible, and only destructive to new citizens who want to live there (that don't have an existing vested interest in the area).
If the area being "preserved" was limited in some way, then sure. But the reality is that new housing is simply illegal in every positive population growth city in the country. You cannot live in a city as a young person without displacing someone else because we've legislated it that way, and that's insane.