All of the major cities in America are slowly choking to death on the automobile. Whether its bad air or bad traffic the refusal to accept planning that has famously defined our society since World War II is coming around to bite us.
Here in Boston the city is adding 50,000 units of housing in the core which sounds good but new Mass Transit extensions that would alleviate the traffic and pollution languish for lack of funding.
The suburbs around the city are choked during three hour morning and evening rush hours as many commuters spend three plus hours per day fuming in cars that spew pollution and carbon into the air exacerbating green house gases.
Government continues to be ineffective in addressing these problems whether due to excessive influence peddling or to a lack of will or more critically to a lack of demand from the public for a solution.
This has been the situation for 60 years and efforts to change it across the country are stymied by obstructionism that will not cease until the seas actually rise enough to flood the streets. When we cannot drive to our underground garages in our sealed cars the will to change will materialize.
Here in Boston the city is adding 50,000 units of housing in the core which sounds good but new Mass Transit extensions that would alleviate the traffic and pollution languish for lack of funding.
The suburbs around the city are choked during three hour morning and evening rush hours as many commuters spend three plus hours per day fuming in cars that spew pollution and carbon into the air exacerbating green house gases.
Government continues to be ineffective in addressing these problems whether due to excessive influence peddling or to a lack of will or more critically to a lack of demand from the public for a solution.
This has been the situation for 60 years and efforts to change it across the country are stymied by obstructionism that will not cease until the seas actually rise enough to flood the streets. When we cannot drive to our underground garages in our sealed cars the will to change will materialize.
3
I'm an urban planning grad student who moved to Los Angeles for school, because I was fascinated by all the city has to offer (I'm a NYC-area native). In many ways LA is an amazing place, but auto supremacy is baked into the city's DNA and design. So I have deep admiration for the pedestrian, bike, and transit advocates here who are working against huge odds.
A few things outsiders should know about the Nhood Integrity Initiative:
1. They are what us youngsters refer to on the internet as "concern trolls." Their stated concern for affordable housing and cost of living is a cover for their real agenda, which is to lock LA into its suburban, car-dependent layout. This whole fight started because the foundation bankrolling the NII has its office on the 29th floor of a Hollywood high-rise, and the Palladium project would block their view of the mountains.
2. Homeowners in California have immense power and privilege. LA was sold from the beginning as a city where everyone could own a single-family home, and open hostility to renters remains common here. In 1978, Proposition 13 basically abolished property taxes for incumbent landowners, so when property values rise, owners capture all the gains. Thus, they have every incentive to keep housing scarce and pricey.
3. Every city has its own weird pathologies. One of LA's is residents who believe the city is "full" and should somehow stop more people from moving here. I don't get it either.
A few things outsiders should know about the Nhood Integrity Initiative:
1. They are what us youngsters refer to on the internet as "concern trolls." Their stated concern for affordable housing and cost of living is a cover for their real agenda, which is to lock LA into its suburban, car-dependent layout. This whole fight started because the foundation bankrolling the NII has its office on the 29th floor of a Hollywood high-rise, and the Palladium project would block their view of the mountains.
2. Homeowners in California have immense power and privilege. LA was sold from the beginning as a city where everyone could own a single-family home, and open hostility to renters remains common here. In 1978, Proposition 13 basically abolished property taxes for incumbent landowners, so when property values rise, owners capture all the gains. Thus, they have every incentive to keep housing scarce and pricey.
3. Every city has its own weird pathologies. One of LA's is residents who believe the city is "full" and should somehow stop more people from moving here. I don't get it either.
10
I spent a few days in the LA basin not too long ago. The citizens are right to be concerned about what's happening to their city and to express a desire to be more deeply involved in future planning. As the old song said, "LA is a great big freeway..." and at times it seems like little else.
There needs to be a comprehensive plan for where the city is going. I don't have a clue about how that could be accomplished with 88 different cities flying under the banner "LA", but I do know that not planning could be a disaster. In fact, the disaster has already occurred by creating this ramshackle thing called Los Angeles, but somehow the residents have made it work for them, even if it doesn't work all the time.
By the way, I was amazed at the cottage like houses, row after row, near the airport in Burbank. If you want to think 1920s or '30s charm, that's it. Long Beach has been transformed, it appeared, into a full time tourist and entertainment zone to rival Disney World. For me, getting out into the magnificence that is California outside the cities is what it is all about.
There needs to be a comprehensive plan for where the city is going. I don't have a clue about how that could be accomplished with 88 different cities flying under the banner "LA", but I do know that not planning could be a disaster. In fact, the disaster has already occurred by creating this ramshackle thing called Los Angeles, but somehow the residents have made it work for them, even if it doesn't work all the time.
By the way, I was amazed at the cottage like houses, row after row, near the airport in Burbank. If you want to think 1920s or '30s charm, that's it. Long Beach has been transformed, it appeared, into a full time tourist and entertainment zone to rival Disney World. For me, getting out into the magnificence that is California outside the cities is what it is all about.
3
No article on building in LA should neglect discussing traffic. It is crushing. The freeways are jammed and once quiet residential streets are now jammed with Wazers trying to avoid those jammed freeways. The city must do more. Are these taller buildings just adding more drivers?
12
This is what's good about LA, It's a real city, like New York, with lots of variety and diversity, plenty to do at all hours, but with no freezing-cold winters. Plus crime is not so bad.
On the other hand, if New York had good weather year-round everyone would want to live here.
On the other hand, if New York had good weather year-round everyone would want to live here.
4
And a bit more living space.
4
No better place to promote growth and increase population density than a city that never had any water to begin with in a state experiencing the worst drought in 1,200 years, a drought that may well be permanent given climate change. Earthquakes, smirchquakes. Where will the water come from? Let's keep building right up to the moment we go the way of the Anasazi and the Maya.
9
oh please R. Tra.....lighten up....water can always be bought in stores
2
Yeah, but they're called Canadian reservoirs. Those kind of stores.
2
So you shower, wash dishes, hands, and teeth, flush toilets, water plants, wash windows, etc. with bottled water? Seriously?
3
Developers have controlled Los Angeles for decades. Many areas are so haphazardly pieced together that it seems there are no zoning laws. Anything goes. Money talks.
Developers have no interest in building projects that are scaled to their surroundings. They are maximizing profit by building to the max physically.
As a native New Yorker I'm comfortable with tall buildings, but L.A. has almost no skyline. Our downtown is small and undistinguished. It barely registers as you drive by it. New York is a vertical city. L.A. is horizontal.
Tall new buildings will stick out in most neighborhoods. They will increase the hodgepodge look we have now. The mess will get messier.
Developers have no interest in building projects that are scaled to their surroundings. They are maximizing profit by building to the max physically.
As a native New Yorker I'm comfortable with tall buildings, but L.A. has almost no skyline. Our downtown is small and undistinguished. It barely registers as you drive by it. New York is a vertical city. L.A. is horizontal.
Tall new buildings will stick out in most neighborhoods. They will increase the hodgepodge look we have now. The mess will get messier.
6
oh lighten up andrew.....vertical has beaten horizontal in 30 recent polls so get used to the height and enjoy the lack of visible stars....oh that is right...this is l.a.....where there are stars even when you can't see the sky
1
Ironically, LA has some of the most byzantine zoning codes and land use regulations in the world. Our endless sprawl and 24/7 traffic is the direct result of central planners micromanaging every square inch of the city around easy motoring and subsidized parking.
2
I sit by my pool most nights and treasure every star.
"a city filled with handsome tree-lined neighborhoods and classic old homes."
OK, you can stop right there. This is the sort of line that could only be written by someone who has never really been to LA but has spent several hours talking to people who grew up there and never really left.
LA is a crumbling morass of dusty concrete, sticky-tar pavement, and gaunt faces. It's most dominant architectural feature is the sign above each cut curb that advertises the dollar store, donut shop, and subway that can be found inside.
By the end of my time there, I was kind of affectionate about the place. But let's not support this delusion. LA is an ugly place filled with beautiful people, endlessly and futilely punching upwards for relevance and renown.
OK, you can stop right there. This is the sort of line that could only be written by someone who has never really been to LA but has spent several hours talking to people who grew up there and never really left.
LA is a crumbling morass of dusty concrete, sticky-tar pavement, and gaunt faces. It's most dominant architectural feature is the sign above each cut curb that advertises the dollar store, donut shop, and subway that can be found inside.
By the end of my time there, I was kind of affectionate about the place. But let's not support this delusion. LA is an ugly place filled with beautiful people, endlessly and futilely punching upwards for relevance and renown.
9
Your statement reveals your own bitterness and ignorance. LA is the only major city in the US that is filled with nature, whether it be canyons, parks or beaches. NYC is actually the "morass" of concrete that smells like the third world. Cafe's on sidewalks where the garbage is dragged out every night, leaking with maggots (because NYC was not designed with alleys in the back like other true world class cities like Paris or London). No thanks. It's obvious that many who don the NYC-is-the-best-city-in-the-world blinders are threatened by Los Angeles finally becoming the sprawling, vibrant metropolis that it's always hinted at. Think Rio or Mexico City.
8
"a city filled with handsome tree-lined neighborhoods and classic old homes."
I find your criticism odd. As a native Angeleno, this line struck me as being written by a true local and not, as you write, "by someone who has never really been to LA." There are, literally, hundreds of neighborhoods in Los Angeles. And, the residential areas of nearly all of them match the above description in some fashion. In some, maybe it's a block by block basis or maybe the glory has faded somewhat, but they are very clearly there -- throughout the entire city. It's one of the most striking aspects of the city. I welcome greater density and mass transit, but I would be very very sad indeed if these glories can't be preserved alongside progress.
I find your criticism odd. As a native Angeleno, this line struck me as being written by a true local and not, as you write, "by someone who has never really been to LA." There are, literally, hundreds of neighborhoods in Los Angeles. And, the residential areas of nearly all of them match the above description in some fashion. In some, maybe it's a block by block basis or maybe the glory has faded somewhat, but they are very clearly there -- throughout the entire city. It's one of the most striking aspects of the city. I welcome greater density and mass transit, but I would be very very sad indeed if these glories can't be preserved alongside progress.
7
I agree Locho, " LA is an ugly place to live ". I live in the Marina Del Rey area for over 40 years and I can't wait to move back to Ouagadougou.Or maybe Alleppo
if things settle down.
if things settle down.
1
The massive car culture and accompanying air problem must be addressed sooner rather than later.
In the 1970s the hop downtown on the Santa Monica Freeway at, say 7pm, to go to the Music Center, was a challenge but invigorating. Now it is impossible.
The freeways are built, you may say. But they may need to become corridors for mass transportation—like above-ground giant subways. The must-be-dwindled private car is then relegated mostly to the streets.
In the 1970s the hop downtown on the Santa Monica Freeway at, say 7pm, to go to the Music Center, was a challenge but invigorating. Now it is impossible.
The freeways are built, you may say. But they may need to become corridors for mass transportation—like above-ground giant subways. The must-be-dwindled private car is then relegated mostly to the streets.
5
Design a city where people don't need a car and your city will be wonderful.
7
"This is a city...filled with people who live in homes with year-round gardens and open skies dotted by swaying palm trees, often blocks away from gritty boulevards..."
“Our city is rapidly being gentrified,” Mr. Riordan said. “The working poor — the lower middle class — are being pushed out of L.A...."
gentrification by itself should be welcomed; it's the accompanying expense or the stratification that is usually unwelcomed. well maintained buildings, trash collection, trees and walking spaces are necessary for a clean and pretty city, even though they cost resources.
zoning is also necessary for maintaining an attractive and efficient city, but both dense and spread out cities can be zoned well, or not.
“Our city is rapidly being gentrified,” Mr. Riordan said. “The working poor — the lower middle class — are being pushed out of L.A...."
gentrification by itself should be welcomed; it's the accompanying expense or the stratification that is usually unwelcomed. well maintained buildings, trash collection, trees and walking spaces are necessary for a clean and pretty city, even though they cost resources.
zoning is also necessary for maintaining an attractive and efficient city, but both dense and spread out cities can be zoned well, or not.
The cities are all the same now, they all may as well be in China. Big hulking piles of glass and concrete, all that's missing is the space ship and aliens coming out to eat us.
It used to be 'New York is different then there is everything else' but now it likely Detroit or Mollenbeek with all the rest being the versions of Houston. The old stuff gets bought out because once upon a time it had value or was nice. Money is stupid, it does not know how to make good, new things only ruin the old and lie about it.
I used to go to LA a lot ... more relaxed than San Francisco, but it is horrid now, like New York City has become ... the inside of a bank vault crammed with cars.
It used to be 'New York is different then there is everything else' but now it likely Detroit or Mollenbeek with all the rest being the versions of Houston. The old stuff gets bought out because once upon a time it had value or was nice. Money is stupid, it does not know how to make good, new things only ruin the old and lie about it.
I used to go to LA a lot ... more relaxed than San Francisco, but it is horrid now, like New York City has become ... the inside of a bank vault crammed with cars.
3
Los Angeles has a famously weak mayor, so quoting him as a news authority needs to be taken with a grain of salt.
Major changes will not occur without reforms to CEQA. This has been made clear by the state's legislative analyst office.
Major changes will not occur without reforms to CEQA. This has been made clear by the state's legislative analyst office.
1
Mass transit is a joke here. I live 17 miles away from work and need to take three trains which takes an hour. One train takes surface streets and stops at lights. That's why I drive to work. Btw I live in K-town and work near LAX.
9
Doesn't a lot of the affordable housing come from buildings that used to be luxury but are now outclassed by the fancy new buildings? To attract tenants they must lower their rents.
4
Replacing a 2-story wood-frame building - off street parking in the back - with a high rise steel frame building with elevators and very expensive underground parking requires extremely high rents. It is only economically possible in a few major cities in the US. Those booming and with sufficient rich and upper middle class to afford it. So the middle and working classes are forced further out and into longer and longer commutes to get to work. Urban sprawl defined. The lower economic classes are leaving CA for places like TX where they can afford a place to live.
If you are in downtown Manhattan you can walk to everything. But of the 24 Million people in metro NYC, 2/3 are outside NYC and have the worst and longest commutes in the country.
As for the effects on Climate Change, Dr. Kammen of UC-Berkeley (on the IPCC) found that while urban residents contribute half the avg. GHGs per person, suburbanites contribute twice as much so gains on GHGs in the center are more than made up for by those pushed out to the suburbs. C.f., http://energyblog.nationalgeographic.com/2014/01/10/when-seeking-the-cit...
If you are in downtown Manhattan you can walk to everything. But of the 24 Million people in metro NYC, 2/3 are outside NYC and have the worst and longest commutes in the country.
As for the effects on Climate Change, Dr. Kammen of UC-Berkeley (on the IPCC) found that while urban residents contribute half the avg. GHGs per person, suburbanites contribute twice as much so gains on GHGs in the center are more than made up for by those pushed out to the suburbs. C.f., http://energyblog.nationalgeographic.com/2014/01/10/when-seeking-the-cit...
5
"while urban residents contribute half the avg. GHGs per person, suburbanites contribute twice as much so gains on GHGs in the center are more than made up for by those pushed out to the suburbs."
Need light rail. Way more energy efficient that cars.
Need light rail. Way more energy efficient that cars.
3
Most of the comments here are aging curmudgeons waxing nostalgically for the post WW2 Los Angeles of their youth.
5
What's your point? Ageism is unbecoming. Even you will age too, we hope.
5
Meanwhile, the homeless population is exploding. Tent cities pop up on streets all over Los Angeles. The semi-suburban neighborhood of Eagle Rock, named by some real estate website as the "most desirable neighborhood in the US to live" just cleared out a homeless encampment under a freeway overpass the other day. People are living in RV's along city streets, an unhealthy situation for everyone involved, and the city does nothing except clear them out. They move to a new street.
Give me a break, greedy developers and city council people getting paid to ignore zoning issues--density isn't leading to lower rents when the buildings that are going up have luxury condos, or 1BDR apartments for $3000 a month. In order for a city to thrive, all kinds of people have to be able to afford to live there. Look at San Francisco or New York; these cities have become like the space station in the film "Elysium," while the have-not residents have to find some crumbling corner of Earth to live on.
I don't want to see my city turn into that. I love my insanely multi-cultural, kooky town.
Give me a break, greedy developers and city council people getting paid to ignore zoning issues--density isn't leading to lower rents when the buildings that are going up have luxury condos, or 1BDR apartments for $3000 a month. In order for a city to thrive, all kinds of people have to be able to afford to live there. Look at San Francisco or New York; these cities have become like the space station in the film "Elysium," while the have-not residents have to find some crumbling corner of Earth to live on.
I don't want to see my city turn into that. I love my insanely multi-cultural, kooky town.
10
NYC attracts folks from all over the country due to its extremely generous services for homeless/non-working low income folks. The working poor are not eligible for such services - as they are working and don't meet the income requirements, despite not being able to afford rent, etc. this is a serious problem for LA as well. While the working poor are squeezed out, the non working poor receive the bulk of rent subsidies and other benefits. It has been well documented that NYC is a city for the rich and the very (non working) poor. who receive very generous rent subsidies that allow them to live in Manhattan. This while the working poor have to live very far from Manhattan, and have horrible commutes. Perhaps NYC and LA should reprioritize subsidized housing. The non working poor can be housed in the more distant areas and the working poor houses near their jobs.
12
I spent eight of the last ten years in LA. Not from there so I lack the nostalgia from when gas was cheap and land was plentiful. I found LA to be the most amazing, diverse, dynamic city I’ve ever been to. It’s everything they taught us to hate in urban planning school yet somehow it not only works but thrives. LA feels like it’s going through an adolescent moment where it’s still figuring out exactly what it wants to be– and because it’s still evolving, it’s far more interesting than more established cities. Despite its uniqueness, LA needs learn lessons in urban growth from around the world. The city’s leadership is right on target by pushing for expanded mass transit, density around transit hubs, walkable neighborhoods, bike lanes (perfect weather for that) – basically any and all alternatives to the pervasive private car. If LA wishes to retain its global relevance and not choke on its own traffic in the meantime, it needs mobility alternatives and it needs to grow vertically. There are so many misguided NIMBYs there shooting down positive growth because they’re afraid of more traffic. LA will always have bad traffic, but if we create walkable neighborhoods and non-car mobility, sitting in traffic will be a lifestyle choice rather than a necessity. LA is already changing for the better – transit has expanded, many neighborhoods are already quite walkable, and fewer people are choosing to rely on cars for everything they do. Let’s keep this up and LA will blossom.
42
for a while it seemed like only people that never leave NY were leaving comments, thanks.
2
"...many neighborhoods are already quite walkable..." Really! Let's see:
1) West Hollywood area, around SM Blvd, Crescent Heights to Robertson
2) certain parts around Abbott Kinney in Venice
3) a small area of DTLA, if we're counting "walkable" to include groceries, drycleaning, pet care, etc.
4) maybe (maybe!) slivers of Silverlake
5) Old Town Pasadena (I'm being generous)
6) for UCLA folks: around Westwood Blvd, N of Wilshire, for a few blocks to the east and west
7) Oh, I'll even throw in upscale 2nd St in faraway Long Beach, to help your assertion
Well, that leaves only the other 7.992 million of us Angelenos.
1) West Hollywood area, around SM Blvd, Crescent Heights to Robertson
2) certain parts around Abbott Kinney in Venice
3) a small area of DTLA, if we're counting "walkable" to include groceries, drycleaning, pet care, etc.
4) maybe (maybe!) slivers of Silverlake
5) Old Town Pasadena (I'm being generous)
6) for UCLA folks: around Westwood Blvd, N of Wilshire, for a few blocks to the east and west
7) Oh, I'll even throw in upscale 2nd St in faraway Long Beach, to help your assertion
Well, that leaves only the other 7.992 million of us Angelenos.
2
Same thing is happening here in Portland. City Hall is in the pockets of the developers. Affordable housing is unavailable--long time renters are being forced to move to outlying areas. Developers are tearing down single-family dwellings and building big apartment buildings on every square inch of available space. Forget about back yards or trees. They call it "green building" when they don't provide parking spaces, and pretend that all the tenants will use public transportation or ride bicycles. Of course the new people still have cars, so they park all over the neighborhood, making life even more difficult for long time residents.
12
According to the California legislative analyst: "building new housing indirectly adds to the supply of housing at the lower end of the market in multiple ways"
1
Thomas Busses, stop reading propaganda and look at the real world around you. I have friends in the San Francisco Bay Area and they've all been forced to move out to the boonies, even out of state. Building new housing for the rich doesn't add to the supply of new housing for the "lower end" of the market, anymore than giving billionaires tax breaks trickles down to the rest of us. Unless you count cardboard boxes under bridges and clusters of tents in city parks as "new housing."
5
Patricians in the core, plebeians on the fringes - it's happening to major cities globally.
As to density, what's the problem doing that downtown? If you're talking putting tall buildings among single-story ranch houses that's another matter.
As to density, what's the problem doing that downtown? If you're talking putting tall buildings among single-story ranch houses that's another matter.
3
Wrong. In NYC, the non working poor - who meet the income requirements for generous housing subsidies- continue to live in Manhattan and Brooklyn. It is the working poor who suffer - they are not eligible for any subsidies that would allow them to live closer to their jobs.
4
Build the density with regulations. In Europe the densest cities are Naples and Barcelona. They don't have high rises. They just have districts of blocks with 5-8 story buildings. London (outside the financial district) is a very low rise city with many parks - but every street for 30-40 miles out has 4 story row houses. These houses are divided by 8 or 16 in poor neighborhoods, Divided by 4 in middle class neighborhoods, and divided by 2 or 1 in rich neighborhoods. All of these cities became mega-dense and low rise by planning. LA doesn't have to copy any of these - it can make its own blue print to increase density and protect historical area's - all without building a single building over 8 stories.
5
Mr. Zasloff's ending comment implying that the new buildings will lead to more affordable rents for the middle class is profoundly untrue. Rents in these new buildings are stratospheric; pretty much everyone knows that.
11
The thing that seems to be happening in Los Angeles is a sort of reclamation of parts that had been long forgotten — downtown, especially.
I don't think one needs to point out all the obvious racial implications involved (although race has always played a dominant role in Los Angeles' civic history).
I'm merely sorry that you're now experiencing the kind of fascism-by-proxy that started in New York in 1994, and hasn't stopped since.
Knowing a bit about Los Angeles and occasionally spending time there for work, I'm probably not well-versed enough to know for sure, but it seems it be happening a lot slower there than here.
My advice, for what it's worth, is to wave the white flag and move elsewhere, if possible. If you ain't rich, you are not wanted. Sadly.
I don't think one needs to point out all the obvious racial implications involved (although race has always played a dominant role in Los Angeles' civic history).
I'm merely sorry that you're now experiencing the kind of fascism-by-proxy that started in New York in 1994, and hasn't stopped since.
Knowing a bit about Los Angeles and occasionally spending time there for work, I'm probably not well-versed enough to know for sure, but it seems it be happening a lot slower there than here.
My advice, for what it's worth, is to wave the white flag and move elsewhere, if possible. If you ain't rich, you are not wanted. Sadly.
4
The Pico union district is the most populated area in the city, if not the whole country. It sits next to the "new LA", Staples center, La live...
Every day we see Santa Monica folks drive downtown to work, and the downtown folks drive to Santa Monica to support the tourism industry.
SM folks won't buy condos in LA, and downtown folks can't afford SM or suburbs.
We drive 60 and 40 miles respectively on a daily basis for 20 years so we could find "affordable" housing.
Discussing gentrification without including the immigration factor is a mistake. High rise is not the issue, it must be planned and interfaced with a comprehensive transportation infrastructure. I love LA and our cars, but when in Paris, London or NY, public transportation gets me everywhere.
Every day we see Santa Monica folks drive downtown to work, and the downtown folks drive to Santa Monica to support the tourism industry.
SM folks won't buy condos in LA, and downtown folks can't afford SM or suburbs.
We drive 60 and 40 miles respectively on a daily basis for 20 years so we could find "affordable" housing.
Discussing gentrification without including the immigration factor is a mistake. High rise is not the issue, it must be planned and interfaced with a comprehensive transportation infrastructure. I love LA and our cars, but when in Paris, London or NY, public transportation gets me everywhere.
4
And the earthquakes? Tall is not good.
6
A couple years ago the developers and their pals the city officials overruled the geologists and seismologists research that showed they were on shaky ground. In the end, developer money will buy politicians who will then approve anything the developers ask for.
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-hollywood-fault-map-20141106...
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-hollywood-fault-map-20141106...
1
MATURE MIRANDA
There was a desert wind blowing that night.
The Santa Anas blow hard over the city, scattering garbage cans and rubble.
Two ORANGE-VESTED PERSONNEL, barely visible and lost in the monotony of their job, fail to pick up wind-blown debris along a freeway on-ramp.
MATURE MIRANDA
"One of those hot dry Santa Anas that come down through the mountain passes and curl your hair, make your nerves jump and your skin itch."
A PILE OF BLACK GARBAGE BAGS, already piled up along the side of the freeway, waits for collection.
MATURE MIRANDA
"On nights like that every booze party ends in a fight. Meek little wives feel the edge of the carving knife and study their husbands' necks.
Anything can happen."
There was a desert wind blowing that night.
The Santa Anas blow hard over the city, scattering garbage cans and rubble.
Two ORANGE-VESTED PERSONNEL, barely visible and lost in the monotony of their job, fail to pick up wind-blown debris along a freeway on-ramp.
MATURE MIRANDA
"One of those hot dry Santa Anas that come down through the mountain passes and curl your hair, make your nerves jump and your skin itch."
A PILE OF BLACK GARBAGE BAGS, already piled up along the side of the freeway, waits for collection.
MATURE MIRANDA
"On nights like that every booze party ends in a fight. Meek little wives feel the edge of the carving knife and study their husbands' necks.
Anything can happen."
4
"You can even get a full glass of beer at a cocktail lounge.”
>>>>
Now all you need is water.
"Water is the first principle of everything"
Thales
Now all you need is water.
"Water is the first principle of everything"
Thales
23
Right on point, especially as it relates to Southern California, and LA in particular. As economic and population growth in LA metro becomes inevitable, water is the first demand that must be met. The water issue is real today in most of the West, and when the city's leaders addressed it in the first part of the 20th century, they were previewing what had to be done to bring the primary resource needed for growth to occur. The movie Chinatown was only partly fiction.
2
Change... nobody likes it and apparently almost nobody can afford it.
7
I first moved to l.A. in 64". I subsequently was a resident on and off til 07", when it was unlivable. The city once charming is lost maybe forever. Hopefully the drought will force a retraction of population and those high rises will be torn down and the charm and liveability Will return.
7
Perhaps you should move to Palm Springs or Petaluma!
1
And no comment on water? I doubt that more housing will just reconfigure the people already living there. More Angelinos=more water need in the face of an ongoing drought.
15
Unless you have a plan to stop people from moving to Southern California full stop, then infill development is the way to go. We'll be wasting far less water, resources and tax revenue by building up as opposed to out.
Let's only aggregate opinions from boomers and other old people to ensure nothing changes.
7
Time Travel back a hundred years to the City of Angels. It was the far west edge of the American Frontier; and a small town.
Fifty years ago on the West Side, where I grew up, the tallest building was at most three stories, the dominant architecture Spanish Colonial. Red terra-cotta roof tiles, thick wood beams, white stucco. Low-rise duplexes lined both sides of Wilshire Boulevard, then a modest four-lane county highway. "The Valley" was the San Fernando Valley, "America's Truck Garden". No "San Diego Freeway", now called "I-5", cut through "the heart of the Southland". To go to San Diego, you drove until you hit Sepulveda or the Pacific Coast Highway, then turned south. Most of that long, long drive took you through empty coastal desert scrubland. Talk about Lost Worlds ...
Now, of course, many describe the abomination that Los Angeles has become as a "miracle". Economic growth might be miraculously unstoppable thanks to the heedless mendacity of unslakable greed. But Los Angeles' foundations literally rest on nothing but broken rocks and water-logged sand.
Geologically, the Los Angeles Basin was created by a state that's literally breaking apart. It vaguely resembles a wavy twelve-mile deep ice cream cone. What Lies Beneath is stranger still: a deep salt water/tar/crude oil-filled sink. The City of Los Angeles is built upon an unstable rubble pile, why the next big (8.0+) earthquake will be murderous, ruinous and infrastructurally irreparable.
Fifty years ago on the West Side, where I grew up, the tallest building was at most three stories, the dominant architecture Spanish Colonial. Red terra-cotta roof tiles, thick wood beams, white stucco. Low-rise duplexes lined both sides of Wilshire Boulevard, then a modest four-lane county highway. "The Valley" was the San Fernando Valley, "America's Truck Garden". No "San Diego Freeway", now called "I-5", cut through "the heart of the Southland". To go to San Diego, you drove until you hit Sepulveda or the Pacific Coast Highway, then turned south. Most of that long, long drive took you through empty coastal desert scrubland. Talk about Lost Worlds ...
Now, of course, many describe the abomination that Los Angeles has become as a "miracle". Economic growth might be miraculously unstoppable thanks to the heedless mendacity of unslakable greed. But Los Angeles' foundations literally rest on nothing but broken rocks and water-logged sand.
Geologically, the Los Angeles Basin was created by a state that's literally breaking apart. It vaguely resembles a wavy twelve-mile deep ice cream cone. What Lies Beneath is stranger still: a deep salt water/tar/crude oil-filled sink. The City of Los Angeles is built upon an unstable rubble pile, why the next big (8.0+) earthquake will be murderous, ruinous and infrastructurally irreparable.
21
Actually I-5 is called the "Santa Ana" freeway and I-405 is called the "San Diego" freeway. I-10 is the "Santa Monica" freeway.
1
To be more precise about my dates, they are 1905 and 1955.
1
@David:
That's right. I left LA several years before the "I" (for "interstate highway system") nomenclature replaced the old "US route" system. US-Route like "Route 66", the transcontinental highway you through the American Southwest and Midwest you drove coast-to-coast, made famous by the TV show.
How did we say it back then? "US 99" (or just "99") ran north/south, through "the Grapevine", then up the Central Valley to Sacramento. "US 101" was the coastal freeway that stole much of old Highway 1.
As I recall, after "99" dropped into The Valley, it meandered through the middle of LA, skirting Griffith Park. "101" hugged West Side, incorporated several miles of Sepulveda Blvd previously cut through the Santa Monica Mountains above Sunset and the freeway that everyone then called "San Diego".
The freeway network wasn't remotely as expansive as now; nor, frankly, as congested (to the point of strangulation). The rumor is true: "if you build it they will come." Indeed they did -- by the millions.
I'm happy not to be living in such an overcrowded yet curiosly empty, soulless, place; forget driving around it.
That's right. I left LA several years before the "I" (for "interstate highway system") nomenclature replaced the old "US route" system. US-Route like "Route 66", the transcontinental highway you through the American Southwest and Midwest you drove coast-to-coast, made famous by the TV show.
How did we say it back then? "US 99" (or just "99") ran north/south, through "the Grapevine", then up the Central Valley to Sacramento. "US 101" was the coastal freeway that stole much of old Highway 1.
As I recall, after "99" dropped into The Valley, it meandered through the middle of LA, skirting Griffith Park. "101" hugged West Side, incorporated several miles of Sepulveda Blvd previously cut through the Santa Monica Mountains above Sunset and the freeway that everyone then called "San Diego".
The freeway network wasn't remotely as expansive as now; nor, frankly, as congested (to the point of strangulation). The rumor is true: "if you build it they will come." Indeed they did -- by the millions.
I'm happy not to be living in such an overcrowded yet curiosly empty, soulless, place; forget driving around it.
1
Building up instead of out make sense for a number of reasons, including that this younger generation wants to live/work and play in a close geographic circle. The issue with LA is that this will only work if there is good mass transit system, which LA does not have. So while the build affordable housing downtown where the 20's will live, what are they supposed to do if their job is in Playa or West Hollywood- sit in the ever worse traffic?
4
every "dense" city in
every dense city in America has one thing in common: expensive housing. its idiotic to suggest that high rise luxury condos are affordable
every dense city in America has one thing in common: expensive housing. its idiotic to suggest that high rise luxury condos are affordable
21
“You could be in the city and still be in the country at the same time." That is the charm of L.A. N.Y.C, where I have also lived, lacks the charm of L.A., where I can look out my windows and see lots of green and sky, while being able to walk to shops and restaurants. This is not just an argument about the size of buildings, but a way of life, harsh vs. more gentle. And what if the drought continues indefinitely, spurring a mass migration? Will we, like Beijing, be left with countless empty sky-rise buildings?
10
Countless high-rises can be torn down and the charm will and !I ability will return. Down with progress up with life.
1
That's great for wealthy people. Trying living in LA on a blue collar salary. I suggest you try to keep high rises out of your affluent neighborhood, while supporting vertical affordable housing along public mass transit routes. And BTW, what is it costing in water use to be able to see lovely 'green' out your window?
5
The history is long gone..No one knows and no one remembers..It's now basically a nightmare..
12
omg, phyllis, even in brentwood !!!???
whats this country comin' to, i ask you
4
It's a city, not a national park. As our economy returns to life after the 2008 crash and post-crash sluggishness, the economies and populations of cities will pick up again. Accordingly, housing will be crucial.
It's not just Los Angeles, it's every major city in the US, and even Canada. Cities are where most of the jobs are at. Unfortunately, the housing in major cities is exorbitantly expensive, and is in increasingly short supply. The building boom that's been happening here in New York, for instance, seems focused on high-end condos and apartments, not affordable housing.
The solution is simple, but not easy to accomplish. More affordable housing must become available. Wages must also rise to meet the standards and necessities of contemporary life. As long as we have overwhelming income inequality, developers only focused on housing the 1%, and politicians more concerned with keeping their jobs than doing their jobs, this solution may still be a ways off.
It's not just Los Angeles, it's every major city in the US, and even Canada. Cities are where most of the jobs are at. Unfortunately, the housing in major cities is exorbitantly expensive, and is in increasingly short supply. The building boom that's been happening here in New York, for instance, seems focused on high-end condos and apartments, not affordable housing.
The solution is simple, but not easy to accomplish. More affordable housing must become available. Wages must also rise to meet the standards and necessities of contemporary life. As long as we have overwhelming income inequality, developers only focused on housing the 1%, and politicians more concerned with keeping their jobs than doing their jobs, this solution may still be a ways off.
4
If one were to look in the dictionary for the definition of "Urban Sprawl", there would be, simply, a photograph of Los Angeles, taken from 20 to 30,000 feet altitude.
While the zoning, pre-World War 2, was mostly 2 story residences, those residences were crammed next to each other, and went solidly from the Ocean all the way well East of Pasadena - creating crowded, ugly, clogged highways, filthy air, in what was once orange groves.
Now, the City of the Angeles grows with the mega-rich, and the cranes and towers tell of the NYC skyline to come. This is supposed to be some kind of big shocker ??
Any concept of "good taste" going hand in hand with "big money" is a joke. West L.A. will soon look like Las Vegas. Oddly enough, that's what urban people want. Flash. Sparkle. Oh, you want quality, infrastructure and good zoning, too ?
Is it the Mayor's fault? No. Is it the city Council's fault? No. Its the asphalt.
Let them eat concrete. That's called "progress".
While the zoning, pre-World War 2, was mostly 2 story residences, those residences were crammed next to each other, and went solidly from the Ocean all the way well East of Pasadena - creating crowded, ugly, clogged highways, filthy air, in what was once orange groves.
Now, the City of the Angeles grows with the mega-rich, and the cranes and towers tell of the NYC skyline to come. This is supposed to be some kind of big shocker ??
Any concept of "good taste" going hand in hand with "big money" is a joke. West L.A. will soon look like Las Vegas. Oddly enough, that's what urban people want. Flash. Sparkle. Oh, you want quality, infrastructure and good zoning, too ?
Is it the Mayor's fault? No. Is it the city Council's fault? No. Its the asphalt.
Let them eat concrete. That's called "progress".
6
Note the repeated insults and contempt for the common people and the majority will and interest in this article! It propagandizes for change of the kind that profits & yields more power for our 1% that is falsely declared to be inevitable. And the democratic majority is expected to submit or be branded as some kind of "ists", "phobes", just plain dumb or neurotically "afraid of change". Glorious always assumed to be good change, the worst aspects of which our 1% always have a plan to exempt themselves from while trumpeting the few benefits of mysterious "density" and increasing the US population until it is as unsustainable as the living in polluted air, soil and water sewers that the people in China and India have to endure. Never mentioned is the most glaringly obvious alternative of no further population growth. Growth that in the US is now mostly rigged by our elites using mass immigration quotas in defiance of 80% of US opinion & 'sanctuary' sabotage of immigration law enforcement. But of course our 1% think its just fine to turn LA and the rest of the USA into a sci fi Matrix like hell where most of us "baskets" of ignorant, too uppity about our employment and sovereignty rights natives & desperate 100's of millions of illiterate immigrants live like animals in closet sized rooms. While the rich & powerful gorging off the fixed percentage rents they can skim off an ever larger GDP live in big apartments & wing off to hobby ranches and sea side mansions on weekends.
11
The Times recently had a similar article about Atlanta, how in that case a sprawling city is embracing its densification through projects like the Beltline. In that article, the tone and descriptive narrative painted Atlanta as a sprawling, soul sucking wasteland. While in this article, where local residents are opposing density, sprawl is treated neutrally, and in some parts said to contribute to southern California's cosmopolitan character.
Can someone explain to me how this is something other than newspaper bias? Why would the same land use patterns be derided in Atlanta as contributing to the city's bland and soulless character but be treated neutrally or having added to a city's cultural character in another?
This newspaper has a shockingly stereotypical view of the southern U.S. Read any article on the region and it falls into one of three categories 1) uncultured suburban flyover country (Atlanta, Charlotte) 2) charming but dangerous third world (New Orleans) or 3) racist backwater (everywhere else).
Can someone explain to me how this is something other than newspaper bias? Why would the same land use patterns be derided in Atlanta as contributing to the city's bland and soulless character but be treated neutrally or having added to a city's cultural character in another?
This newspaper has a shockingly stereotypical view of the southern U.S. Read any article on the region and it falls into one of three categories 1) uncultured suburban flyover country (Atlanta, Charlotte) 2) charming but dangerous third world (New Orleans) or 3) racist backwater (everywhere else).
15
Perhaps it's because Atlanta is bland and soulless and LA isn't.
15
That's exactly the type of bias attitude I'm talking about. Have you even been here? If you have, have you ventured outside downtown, or alternatively the suburbs? Visit Atlanta's in town neighborhoods, watch Donald Glover's new show, listen to some Killer Mike or Shawty Lo (RIP) and try to say Atlanta's bland with a straight face
4
My problem with higher density development in LA is how incredibly generic and unimaginative these buildings are. For me, LA is an architectural treasure trove because of the oddities, experimentation and HUMOROUS structures that were built here in the middle of the 20th century. The city - at least the Westside - is also has some incredibly beautiful plant life that is being removed in the name of density. I am not opposed to higher density per se but I am incredibly tired of seeing architects and developers change the character of this city out of ignorance and laziness.
35
it isn't ignorance or laziness......it is sunshine and reputation and allure....and knowing that it would be just foolishness not to build as much as possible and not worry about the scenic changes in order to accommodate all these thrillseekers from across the country and the globe.
It's called VALUE-ENGINEERING. You can thank the high cost of land and very restrictive zoning (along with NIMBYs who add to development costs) that pushes developers to be stuck between a rock and a hard place.
By building something architecturally pleasing, more expenses are added to the bottom line. That bottom line is constrained by the pro-formas and the unit/design mix that can generate enough income to make the project financially feasible. Most of the time, it won't pencil out due to limited FARs (Floor Area Ratios), maximum building heights, etc.
By building something architecturally pleasing, more expenses are added to the bottom line. That bottom line is constrained by the pro-formas and the unit/design mix that can generate enough income to make the project financially feasible. Most of the time, it won't pencil out due to limited FARs (Floor Area Ratios), maximum building heights, etc.
money will talk as always.
3
A "suburban city" is an unlivable oxymoron. Suburbia are boring, uneconomic, socially divisive, and ecologically unsound. The future lies in high-density urban living. I lived in Hong Kong and Shanghai and loved these amazing, vibrant and high-tech cities. I'm glad LA is becoming more like a real city and less like a never -ending traffic jam.
13
I too lived in Shanghai (5 years) and found the place amazingly vibrant. I have visited Hong Kong, too, in 1961, 1967, 2012, 2014 and would go back and just walk around again in a heart beat. Both of these cities are huge, dense, and fun places to be with great food and culture to be had. While I was living there, Shanghai edged past Paris, France for the most miles of subway track in the world-class city rankings.
Now, I'm living in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, formerly Saigon. HCMC is choking on traffic, which, even in the 14 months I've been here has grown noticeably worse. More and more cars and upwards of new 900 motorbikes *a day* join the scrum that is this city's traffic. Meanwhile at the public transit infrastructure party, the subway and 'skytrain' projects grind along without visible progress towards a completion that is way past overdue. The traffic is so bad that I have made decisions constraining my lifestyle choices simply based on not wanting to spend 30 hours a month in traffic jams. Sad.
I've also lived in LA County and commuted into Hollywood 17 miles. Did that for 8 years. If I left my house before 6:15 AM. I could get to my desk in 25 minutes. In the afternoon, it could take anywhere from 60 to 120 minutes to get home. Build the rails, folks, and ride them. At least you can read a book or sleep on the train, not so in a car, even a Tesla on Autopilot!
Now, I'm living in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, formerly Saigon. HCMC is choking on traffic, which, even in the 14 months I've been here has grown noticeably worse. More and more cars and upwards of new 900 motorbikes *a day* join the scrum that is this city's traffic. Meanwhile at the public transit infrastructure party, the subway and 'skytrain' projects grind along without visible progress towards a completion that is way past overdue. The traffic is so bad that I have made decisions constraining my lifestyle choices simply based on not wanting to spend 30 hours a month in traffic jams. Sad.
I've also lived in LA County and commuted into Hollywood 17 miles. Did that for 8 years. If I left my house before 6:15 AM. I could get to my desk in 25 minutes. In the afternoon, it could take anywhere from 60 to 120 minutes to get home. Build the rails, folks, and ride them. At least you can read a book or sleep on the train, not so in a car, even a Tesla on Autopilot!
I remember Hollywood when it was this funky mix of art deco, cottage apts, zoomy sixties architecture, Spanish, craftsman, brownstones etc. It's been or is being replaced by 10 story ice cube trays. Shame, you'd think one place on planet Earth that should retain some character, it would be Hollywood, California. Whatever happened to facading anyway? You know, where they build a ten story building but leave the face of the beautiful old building it's replacing. Guess the bean counters got to that as well.
18
Or maybe the people who primarily live in LA today don't want a "funky mix of art deco..." and instead prefer more modern designs. Just because you think it should be some way doesn't mean that a younger generation thinks it should be another.
2
Densification + mass transit = energy efficiency. Deal with it.
15
Exactly. People don't realize what a savings it is to heat/cool apartments in tall buildings, nor do they understand why situating such buildings along a mass transit line makes sense.
I am a (former) New Yorker who has lived in LA for more than 3 decades. My ongoing complaint about my adopted "homeland" is the sprawl and the bad planning of a city that didn't anticipate or prepare for the way it has grown. It's about time LA modernized and began "building up" instead of out.
I am a (former) New Yorker who has lived in LA for more than 3 decades. My ongoing complaint about my adopted "homeland" is the sprawl and the bad planning of a city that didn't anticipate or prepare for the way it has grown. It's about time LA modernized and began "building up" instead of out.
Tax efficiency as well. Car-oriented suburbia is a ponzi scheme of epic proportions.
Cry me a river. The older, richer NIMBY-ers need to finally make way for the next generation of Angelinos and their needs. Affordable housing is more important than preserving the view from your $3m home.
27
How many of these structures are affordable?! As NYC proves, you can have density and still have an affordable housing crisis. City councils keep giving entitlements to developers to force density and get very little public benefit in return.
16
Urban sprawl is not sustainable - not from an energy perspective, not from an urban planning perspective, no from a public transport perspective, and not from a human perspective. People cannot spend hours each day sitting in a car in traffic. If LA wants to survive, it must change. The challenge for all Californians is how to preserve their quality of life while adapting to change. Skyscrapers are there to stay, but where and how will they be permitted to grow. And how must they be constructed to withstand earthquakes and fires? How can they become oases of efficiency that advance the markers of environmental sustainability and human livability?
28
The sprawl is already here. What developers are doing is increasing density by building up. Adding density is not going to mitigate the problems already created by sprawl, it is just (and is, as an example see the condoification of the Marina/Playa Vista area) going to create more congestion.
7
Marina was a jaded place until a few years ago. Playa Vista was built on unused land. Thousands of jobs have been created in what was a no man's land. Nothing wrong with that. The congestion is with traffic, not people. Let's lobby for more public transport , not less housing and jobs.
1
Sprawl? I keep reading this word describing the future of L.A. People, Greater L.A. is over 4,800 square miles. Some would say it has already merged with San Diego. It has already sprawled beyond anyone's wildest imagination.
1
Super tall condos and the like may add density but it does nothing for fostering a sense of community. Infill construction is the way to go, and 4 or 5 stories at most. The streets are more alive if people can get to them easily, feel connected to them with their balconies etc. Same density, different vibe.
19
There is so little "sense of community" in LA at the moment. I've lived here, in several different apartments, for more than 30 years and have never felt that I lived in a "community." I currently live in a typical LA 13-unit building; I know my neighbors, but no one discusses, much less agrees on, issues relevant to all of us. So I'm all for LA building upwards.
Thank God I live in Detroit
10
... said no one ever.
14
Cranes all over the East Village of San Diego. Upscale Ritz Carlton going up in neighborhood that has large homeless camps.
10
Downtown San Diego is a perfect example of how NOT to re-develop a dying downtown. There are far too many bars, so only crazy drunks come into downtown on the weekends, and there is far too little assistance for the unbelievable and unconscionable homeless population downtown. We can build stadiums, we can give Seaport Village to the developers, but we can't house those who are being punished by soaring housing costs?
Shame on San Diego politicians.
Shame on San Diego politicians.
1
It should look taller and thinner, obviously
3
This article is a perfect example of the blindfold the LA City Council is wearing regarding fault lines and earthquakes. There is a network of faults in the Los Angeles basin, many of them running right through downtown. I guess we just have to watch Dwayne Johnson movies to see what will happen in the event of a powerful earthquake with the epicenter downtown. It won't be pretty.
12
It's likely almost everywhere in LA is on or near a faultline. How often have we heard the phrase "previously unknown faultine"? Even if a faultline is known and legally considered active, that means the earth moved there at once (and probably only once) in the last 11,000 years. That's one hundred times the lifespan of a building. Unless we stop sprawl and the carbon emissions that go with it, humans won't be around 11,000 years from now.
1
I do believe that with the amazing advances in engineering, that the builders know how to plan for earthquakes. The newer buildings are way safer than the old ones. It isn't 1880 anymore.
2
In 2016 it is perfectly possible to build buildings to withstand major earthquakes. Santiago Chile and Tokyo are two examples of cities with strict building codes that have ensured that recently constructed high rise buildings can withstand such quakes. Newly constructed high rises built to code are more robust, and less dangerous, than older low-rise buildings.
2
As someone who would gladly move to LA if they could afford it: please build more AFFORDABLE housing-vertically and near transit. Maybe Chicago can follow your lead too.
26
It's pretty funny to see someone complain about development that would add to the housing stock AND the lack of affordable housing. I guess that's how silly the debates around "gentrification" has gotten.
4
Plenty of development adds to the housing stock and yet adds little to no affordable housing. This is all the development that's occurring in Manhattan: 18th homes for billionaires, not housing for middle and lower class workers. In the suburbs of NYC as well, almost no housing is built that is sold or rented for less than the median sale price or rent.
9
To add to Wesley's point: Half of this new development is replacing older affordable housing, in many cases larger buildings with a large number of tenants. Especially in North East LA, where large non-rent control residential buildings have been subjected to mass evictions, spewing all of their tenants onto the street and adding to the homeless problem. Far, far too often it's the affordable housing that is being sacrificed to build overpriced, cheap-looking "modern" housing. Think of an apartment structure featured in Dwell Magazine and imagine it redesigned on the cheap by Walmart. That is pretty much what's going up everywhere in Los Angeles. There are some exceptions, but they are absurdly expensive. I know, because I was willing to take a chance on living in a high-rise and the ones that were halfway decent were laughably priced.
And these cheap overpriced structures are destined to become hellholes of urban blight. Hollywood and Koreatown are littered with such structures left over from the 80s. They too, were built originally as luxury buildings, but due to cheap construction and lack of any architectural integrity they soon fell out of favor and now clog up the side streets like huge turds. They are hideous to look at and often hotbeds of crime.
I do think it is an excellent idea to build taller, high density buildings with architectural integrity of some sort near mass transit, but I don't see a lot of that happening yet.
And these cheap overpriced structures are destined to become hellholes of urban blight. Hollywood and Koreatown are littered with such structures left over from the 80s. They too, were built originally as luxury buildings, but due to cheap construction and lack of any architectural integrity they soon fell out of favor and now clog up the side streets like huge turds. They are hideous to look at and often hotbeds of crime.
I do think it is an excellent idea to build taller, high density buildings with architectural integrity of some sort near mass transit, but I don't see a lot of that happening yet.
Almost all the high-rise development is in areas that have always been LA's densest - downtown, Hollywood and along Wilshire Boulevard, where the transit network is best. Development occurs in cycles and the last five years have seen a boom after a long period of very little development, and building booms look scary to residents. Mr. Nagourney doesn't mention the controversial role played by AIDS Healthcare Foundation, using non-profit funds to fight a land use initiative. AHF is itself located in a Hollywood high-rise, next to a proposed development this initiative would stall.
9
“When you have the average renter paying nearly half of his income in rent, that is just unsustainable”
So the gentrification of LA (and surrounding areas) will solve this problem? The developers are not building hi-rise condos and apartments for the working class people that need them.
So the gentrification of LA (and surrounding areas) will solve this problem? The developers are not building hi-rise condos and apartments for the working class people that need them.
26
For sure but my hope is that building more high-rise condos can help relieve some of the pressure from neighborhoods that are becoming gentrified.
We are having the same issue in Chicago: lots of luxury apartments and condos going but very little affordable housing is being built.
We are having the same issue in Chicago: lots of luxury apartments and condos going but very little affordable housing is being built.
7
The way the development cycle works is that new buildings command higher rents, and as they get older, they command lower and lower rents. Many of the old,t buildings in places like Koreatown that have affordable rents were once luxury apartment blocks. If you don't keep building a continuous pipeline of new housing, that life cycle is disrupted, and housing becomes more expensive for everyone. The gentrifiers don't just give up on living in LA if you don't build new buildings for them--they just target the older, cheaper housing stock, making it more expensive and unaffordable for the working class. Stopping development doesn't stop gentrification. It just accelerates it.
36
They are building hi-rise condos for people who have lots of money, who will then move to those places from a now-vacant house. Targetting "working class people" in an expensive city that a lot of people really want to live in doesn't work. They can price a place modestly but that just means those same people with lots of money will outbid the actual working class people. Yes, as we can see in NY, they can build a massive bureaucracy to limit who can live in these places, but that comes with its own set of issues.
We already know: See "Bladerunner".
5
It's not really controversial at all with the people who actually live here. The Stop Manhattanwood nonsense is just some competing developers trying to stop a project that competes with theirs with some fake astroturf activism. People who live in Hollywood are excited that there will be new rental units, and maybe soon to protect the new investments the police will remove the homeless from our streets like they do in fancy West Hollywood.
31
No discussion at all of public transportation and how this relates to sprawl vs tall?
LA is notorious for poor public transit networks. Tall should help consolidate demand for public transit, which in turn will help with sprawl issues, and make the city more accessible to working class people.
Otherwise can you imagine the nightmare of tall buildings each requiring multiple private vehicles all clogging the narrow roads?
LA is notorious for poor public transit networks. Tall should help consolidate demand for public transit, which in turn will help with sprawl issues, and make the city more accessible to working class people.
Otherwise can you imagine the nightmare of tall buildings each requiring multiple private vehicles all clogging the narrow roads?
41
Los Angeles is building new transit lines like crazy. By 2026 LA will have 113 miles of rail: http://la.curbed.com/2015/7/15/9940232/metro-rail-map-past-future
11
Tall will make for a spectacular scenario when the next large quake occurs in southern CA. And, there is a good possibility it will happen in the not too distant future!
Imaging living on the 50th floor of a high-rise that is situated above a major fault line! Not me! You couldn't entice me to live there if they paid the rent and brought in the food!
Imaging living on the 50th floor of a high-rise that is situated above a major fault line! Not me! You couldn't entice me to live there if they paid the rent and brought in the food!
4
Agreed. but what's needed is integration between development and transit. In Westwood developers put three-levels of basement parking under their high-rise luxury building. So they solved the problem, right? Wrong. Those extra cars now clog the streets because nothing was done to enhance alternative transportation in Westwood. Same streets, more cars.
10
Assuming taller buildings have excellent earthquake safety design, density could serve us well. Non-negotiable: ample, reasonably priced underground parking - required for such a vertical leap. I'm no urban planner, but building northward could help centralize where many people want to live, work, play.
Los Angeles is not some charming desertscape with limitless parking space. Parking - and traffic - are hell. For me, traffic is, by far, the worst aspect of living here. Crushing, 19-of-24-hours traffic.
When going to somewhere new, a common question floats in an Angeleno's mind: "How's the parking?" Please, non-Angelenos, no snickering. It's actually how we tend to navigate this splatter of a city.
For metered parking, many of us often drive in circles. And circle back - sometimes three, four times. And waste time. There might be a parking structure nearby; there might not. (To be fair, some offer reduced fees with on-site purchase and validation.)
Other times, I'm just not down with coughing up $9, $17, even $38 to park. Or I do pay it, debating time vs. money.
Too, we often decide what we do outside of work depending on how far it is, and what that ugly freeway crawl will be like. Oh, pick any freeway, really - the 405, the 101, the 10, the 60, the 5, nope nope nope. Cruddy options, all.
Denser areas could become the new Los Angeles.