-
DJB 03/14/2009 11:27:00 AM
Wow. This story is really biased.
I come from the suburbs of Long Beach and I don't like suburbia very much. It's unaffordable, it forces you to drive everywhere, and it doesn't accommodate single people and seniors well.
As an environmentalist who is concerned about the affordable housing crisis we face I support the efforts of Blumenfeld and Goldberg, which have been so crudely slandered in this story.
We have two choices to expand the supply of housing and lower its price: grow out or grow up. Growing out eats up more land (habitat) and forces everyone into driving (and smog and global warming). Growing up (more densely) allows for more jobs close to houses and SHORTER COMMUTES which don't have to be by car.
This article does nothing to advance a civil debate about growth. I printed out a copy (I guess I'm a masochist) and found myself putting quotation marks around all the weasel words.
I almost ran out of ink . . .
-
DJB 12/08/2008 10:31:00 PM
What's so great about suburbia? It's a disaster for the environment. It forces you to drive everywhere since everything is so spread out. Density can mean renting or homeownership, so to attack it on those grounds is pretty disingenuous. The alternative is more sprawl and more mega commuting. LA should be pursuing a 3-5 story multifamily growth model. It doesn't have to be Manhattan, but it shouldn't be the San Fernando Valley either.
-
LA Weekly Reader 05/10/2008 2:50:00 AM
This plot is not intended to "Manhattanize" L.A., as the Mexican mayor has declared over and over...This plot is intended to "Mexicanize L.A."!
The typical Westsider et al does NOT use public transit! Period! Dickens could have sub-titled his novel, "Tale of Two Cities"...L.A...a Tale of Two Cities.
Just take a look at the 'clientele' using public transit...99% Mexican. As I am driving thru Westside traffic everyday, I glance at the overflowing bus stops...not ONE White person! We would be CRAZY to risk our lives standing in line for a bus or subway! My God...we would be sitting ducks!
Augotomobiles, not mass transit, are our life-lines! We have car pools, after-school activities, doctor's appts., shopping, working...all requiring the AUTOMOBILE!
i travelled extensively in China during the 80's and 90's when the population at large only travelled on BICYCLES! Today, those same people are driving AUTOMOBILES. They are growing a middle and upper class now, and have moved into the modern world of AUTOMOBILES!
Villar & Co. are attempting to take us back to third world status...and it's not going to work...over my cold, dead body!
Take your mass transit and shove it!
-
IonaTrailer 03/21/2008 11:24:00 PM
Apologies for the above post - what I meant to say was that single-family homes are being cut up into many rental units, or into condos. One has only to drive around the older sections of LA City with the pre-WWII larger houses to see this. There are so many more people here than the cities and County realize.
-
IonaTrailer 03/21/2008 10:21:00 PM
Not to mention the thousands of illegally converted garages, single family homes into housing units. Or mobile homes parked out back. When the cities discover these zoning violations, they don't want to kick people out and increase the homeless problem. So in many areas things just drag along. When the 2010 Census is completed I think we will all be shocked at just how many people are actually living in LA County!
-
Tim Mallard 03/10/2008 3:09:00 AM
Wait, I thought density was progressive. When did LA Weekly become an advocate for neo-suburban LA nimbyism? Because what we really need in LA is 1,000+ square foot of living space per person...and a pool and thirsty lawn, right? And making sure each new building has parking (at $30,000+ per parking spot) is going to create more affordable housing, how? Siding with low- and no-growth advocates just supports pushing housing out to surrounding counties. Why not emphasize the lack of linked emphasis on more mass transit?
-
Dan Caroselli 03/09/2008 12:16:00 AM
I apologize for calling anyone "A-holes..." I don't like the fact that LA sometimes seems like a microcosm of America: Red states and Blue states with no middle ground. I truly think we can figure out a way to not be polarized about this--I'm sorry that my first reaction to this article and the first few comments was to grab my pitchfork and torch.. That's not a constructive attitude.
But I'll definitely go on the record saying this article was the biggest embarrassment to Angelenos in the past 10 years, and just proved all the cliches that many of us have been trying so hard to move away from.
-
the real facts on smart growth 03/08/2008 11:58:00 PM
for those who drank the smart gwrowh kool aid read go here.
http://www.reason.org/commentaries/courreges_20040519.shtml, http://www.newswithviews.com/Coffman/mike.htm, http://www.fee.org/publications/the-freeman/article.asp?aid=3459, http://www.citizenreviewonline.org/nov_2002/smart_growth.htm (this is how smart growth hurts minorites),including the report from the CATO institute the "folly of smart growth" www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv24n3/otoole.pdf there are a ton more that show that the coorelation of increase ridership in public transportation does not happen.
just because you know how to spout off what smart growth is suppose to do doesn't mean it does what you claim it will. The facts point otherwise. The recently constructed high rise monstrocities in LA will also prove you wrong.
-
mmalaby 03/07/2008 11:00:00 PM
Single family homes on modest lots, the American Dream were a benefit of winning World War II. We had huge manufacturing capacity, captive world markets in Asia and Europe and unbeleivably cheap gas. It allowed us to live a disconnected wasteful life, in between the freedom of the country and the convenience of the city,and escape the social pressures of "the old neighborhood". Today, sadly, we don't have the water, we don't have the oil, we don't have the tax base and we don't have the social infrastructure to maintain the suburban life. They aren't "density hawks", they are dealing with reality. To think we can maintain the suburban lifestyle of the 50's and 60's without the global economic and military empire that enabled it is truely delusional.
-
bjennie 03/06/2008 7:46:00 AM
NOTICE! NOTICE! NOTICE!
There is more to a city than jobs and city coffers. Some of us were actually born here and stay for reasons other than employment. Oh, I forgot, I am not a public service union member so I don't count except for my property tax dollars.
-
Garrick 03/06/2008 1:06:00 AM
Steven Leigh Morris presumes to defend the honor of a mythical, unchanging model of Los Angeles when in reality he is reduced to being an apologist for a model of oil-guzzling, earth-warming American urban development that can be traced back no further than the abandonment of socialized transit in the mid-twentieth century and is now about as unique to Los Angeles as the automobile itself.
I was surprised to "learn" that most people move to Los Angeles for the suburban-style development (instead of, just maybe, abundant good jobs, diversity, and fair weather). He implies that high-density living is only affordable for the wealthy and hurts the interests of the poor, while promoting low-density development which necessitates the purchase of a car costing several thousand dollars in addition to yearly fees, monthly insurance, and weekly fuel bills.
The article reads like a screed by a small group of reactionaries stuck in the twentieth century, determined to honor Reyner Banham's obsolete 'vision' of their erstwhile auto paradise. This is a paranoid defense starkly at odds with a vision of a sustainable, progressive twenty-first century city. And, in a publication such as L.A. Weekly that should value facts over ideology, the facts are that low-density yields cars, high-density yields transit, and that transit is unassailably green.
Morris "supports" his paleolithic point-of-view by giving his readers a concatenation of character assassination, selective use of quotations, spurious unproven allegations, and guilt-by-association. He furthermore venerates a series of statements, studies, and laws made during the Reagan years as if they represent the peak of rationalist inquiry. Does he also use a twenty-year old cellphone, or insist that his dentist use procedures current in 1986? Does he surf the web on a Commodore 64, or tune in to "Family Ties" on his RCA Colortrak? In the long decades since those benighted days we have learned too much about the environmental and social consequences of an auto-based culture. Yet apparently Morris is among those Angelenos who regard the purchase of a Toyota Prius as the highest act of civic and ecological virtue; which of course is the logical equivalent of quitting smoking by switching to "light" cigarettes.
A major flaw in the article is the serious (and probably intentional) confusion Morris creates regarding the term 'congestion'. He rails against the (automobile) congestion (bad) generated by denser development, yet utterly ignores the (people) congestion (good) that will populate our streets, enliven our culture, demand local shopping opportunities, pedestrianize our travel habits, increase our tax base, and (most significantly) provide a critical mass of people eager to use rail-based transit. The obvious solution to auto congestion is just exactly what the city is doing; i.e., making private auto ownership more onerous by eliminating off-street parking, building a denser city, and building a population which will someday join me (and those pathetic "working poor", evidently!) on our beautiful and under-built subway. If Morris is so worried about the loss of green space he might consider the billion square feet of paved freeway that do a fairly good job of inhibiting native vegetation. Moreover, most existing 'green space' within Los Angeles proper is in private hands (in stark contrast to New York and Chicago), and thus inaccessible to the masses in any case (at least without a car!). Morris's vision prefers parking lots to parks, fertilized lawns to real public space, and speeding cars to strolling families.
Even more shamelessly, Morris claims a relationship between density and crime; a claim that would make a nineteenth century NYC tenement reformer blush with envy. This is hogwash. Crime per capita rarely changes much; while a denser city does have more crime, it is merely the result of having more people. The chance of any particular person being victimized by a crime is no greater, and often less (see NYC) in a dense city. Additionally, more 'eyes on the street' provided by pedestrian density reduces crime much more successfully than a hundred more cops roaming around uselessly in their Crown Victorias.
I for one, speaking as an Angeleno, welcome high-density development. There is no reason it has to be ugly, or built only for the rich. Responsible implementation and enforcement of building codes can ensure that it is well-built and durable. Adoption of LEED development practices can ensure that it is sustainable.
And the preposterous companion piece by Julia Cooke, comparing Mexico City's urban planning to that of Los Angeles, is beyond contempt in its vapidity, superficiality, and ignorance of real differences in the societies and economies of our two nations. L.A. Weekly can do better.
-
Becca 03/05/2008 11:39:00 PM
Are the gigantic houses on the hills overlooking Boyle/Lincoln Heights a part of this? They sit there, half finished (or less) and stare down on the more modest buildings below. They don't seem to fit.
-
d. king 03/05/2008 1:49:00 AM
Steven: Thank you for your article. I live on the WestSide (nr. Bundy and Wilshire) and have been amazed at the growth in my area for the last 10 years... The problem here is less the zoning than the infill that is taking place. They often take out low-density apartment builidngs and replace them with high-denisty highly populated apartment complexes. I've often asked myself (and, have indeed asked my Councilman-Rosendahl) how the Building Department could approve all of these new buildings with no thought of the problems with the current infrastructure. I hope that your article will have some effect on those who make these decisions. I believe, though, that the developers and property owners are only in pursuit of the almighty buck!
-
Chris 03/05/2008 1:06:00 AM
Ben Bernanke today said there are now 2 million vacant, UNSOLD homes in the country. Is L.A. panicking that it won't be able to attract enough impoverished and illiterate migrants and needs to out-glut all the other big American cities?
-
Allyn Rifkin 03/04/2008 11:12:00 PM
There is no hope of solving LA's infamous transportation problems without better coordination of land use with a vision for transportation. The LA Department of City Planning and their new Director, Gail Goldberg, embrace this strategy.
Density near transit stations is essential to the solution and necessary to provide a transit system that Angelenos will want to ride. The best analogy I've heard is to compare the vision to a game of "JACKS." The "ball" is the transit system and the "jacks" are the potential transit riders. If the "jacks" are organized in groups, it is much easier to pick them up with the "ball". If the "jacks" are spread all over the table (like our current urban sprawl), you can only pick them up one at a time (not very efficient).
Finally, the kinds of rail systems that concerned citizens envision are too expensive to build without some sense that the density (groups) will be there when it is built. Thoughtful transportation planners acknowledge that we cannot solve the "problem" by providing more automobile capacity and the alternatives need landuse coordination as well.
-
Mark Mauer, LA Weekly Web Edit 03/04/2008 9:40:00 PM
We appreciate the comments and discussion that Steven Leigh Morris' article has inspired.
Mr. Morris has responded to some of the comments at our staff blog, LA Daily:
http://blogs.laweekly.com/ladaily
and we welcome further discussion on this complex issue.
-
Gloria Ohland 03/04/2008 7:49:00 PM
This article is so old school! Low-density auto-oriented development is the reason we have problems like global warming, dependence on an unstable Middle East for oil, traffic congestion, a housing affordability crisis, and endangered habitats and species. We have to make it convenient and interesting to walk and bike and take transit in Los Angeles, and density and mixed-use are key. What? Are we going to stop growing? That's going to be hell on the economy. Manhattan is the greenest city in the U.S. because of its density and transit. Los Angeles needs to grow up too! And we don't even need social engineering -- the demand is there for high-rise living, and the real estate market is already responding.
Gloria Ohland
-
Jennie B 03/04/2008 6:55:00 AM
I am blown away by the vituperative nature of many of these commentss. More than anything, it sounds like just red blooded envy. Here's the deal, dude. I can take the money from my home and go to a much smaller city where my tax dollars will actually produce city services for everyone, not just the lower, middle of the scale. And you? You can sit on those buses that can't move competing to service the few wealthy people who have stayed. Enjoy!
-
johnny 03/04/2008 1:35:00 AM
I get the feeling I'm supposed to be angry, yet the only anger I feel is against Morris. This caustic dung heap of an article is based on fallacious assertions (increased density causes crime!) and facile assumptions. Sentences like "Their template could <em>force</em> urbanism onto all but the most protected enclaves" and "L.A. planners mistakenly believe they are creating the next New York or Chicago, when... it's more likely they are erecting a dense new Third World city" are quite telling of Morris's world view, in which red blooded, apple pie eating homeowners are under siege by big bad wolf developers and their ghoulish pals at city hall. Not once does he stop to question the notion that increased density is "forced". This article is a waste of ink and a blow to this paper's otherwise satisfactory reputation. Perhaps Mr. Morris should consider printing his filth in the OC Weekly instead. (emphasis added)
-
Zachary Stern 03/03/2008 11:45:00 PM
You're not seriously arguing that density is something to be questioned because of crime. What's the safest big city in America? New York. It sounds like the planning process in LA is indeed unseemly, and city plans along with zoning should be created in a transparent, cooperative manner with the communities they will affect. But don't denigrate density because in this case it benefits the politcally connected and influential. Suburbanization is the single greatest threat to the American environment (perhaps second to extractive industry). Density brings resource efficiency and greater economic development to cities. That's worth more than a pool in your backyard.
-
Tom 03/03/2008 11:40:00 PM
Having lived in Los Angeles for over 25 years, I've witnessed firsthand the folly of unrestricted sprawl and letting homeowners associations hijack city planning. If we really want a functional city where people can get around quickly and services are delivered efficiently, higher density is a prerequisite. Having a knee-jerk anti-city attitude is not going to solve the problems caused by short-sighted single-family sprawl.
-
Dan W. 03/03/2008 11:32:00 PM
News flash: If you live north of the 105-Fwy or in the southeast San Fernando Valley you don't live in a suburb. You live in an urban environment, and you are not entitled a suburban, low-density, automobile-based lifestyle just because you want one in all parts of the city, and because of what your neighborhood was like back when Sam Yorty was Mayor.
The best days of the Los Angeles car culture are behind us. It is not true that everyone will have or use a car in the years ahead, or be able to drive and park in every neighborhood, conveniently and affordable just because they want to.
I will vote for any politician with the courage to tell the truth: �The traditional low-density, car culture, suburban-within-urban, lifestyle made famous in popular culture and lore is no longer sustainable in all parts of the city. Sprawl caused rural areas to become suburban. Now some suburban areas are going to become more urban. We should have an honest discussion of what neighborhoods can still be surburban and what ones will have to become more urban out of necessity. In the decades ahead, there will also be neighborhoods like downtown, perhaps Century City, where it will be considered foolish to drive and park a solo-occupancy vehicle. The best days of the car culture as we have known it are now behind us and we will have to invest as heavily and enthusiastically in our public transit infrastructure over the next five decades as we did in roads and freeways over the last five decades.�
-
Big Bill 03/03/2008 2:12:00 PM
Perica: "[In the 1960's] residents didn't want Los Angeles to look like other higher-density Eastern cities, like Chicago and New York."
Gentlemen, in the 1960's LA was white and affluent. It is now "Mexico City Jr." Squalor and degradation are the name of the game. The white folks have left, capisce? You have no water, your population is exploding with poverty-stricken ignorant ill-educated third-world illegals, and your freeways are a nightmare.
So why not do the decent thing and let the Mexicans make a city on the Mexican model that they can enjoy and be proud of.
That cute little ranch-style on a quarter-acre lot / a man's home is his castle / protestant work ethic / clean streets / boy scouts / little league" stuff is so white, so 1960s, so gone, so extinct, OK?
So embrace your inner Latino. Don't fight it. Build the latest rat warren megalopolis. You rich folks can always put walls topped with broken glass shards around your houses the way Latinos have done for over 100 years.
But please, please, drop the "we wanted this in the 1960's" stuff. That is so not going to happen, OK? And we all know it. If you want that, move to the Midwest. Move to white America with the rest of the California expatriates, and let the Mexicans and other Latinos recreate Mexico-City-Norte.
"Zoning" is so white, ya know? And there just aren't enough whites left to make it happen.
-
John A. Mozzer 03/03/2008 5:35:00 AM
One need only explore the City of Los Angeles via Google Satellite, to realize its commercial zones are primarily asphalt parking lots -- good places to accommodate growth if there ever was any.
-
John 03/03/2008 12:48:00 AM
I would like to see an article about the farmland that is being paved over in the central valley to build single family homes (Orange County is already long gone). Or maybe the amount of gas people are burning to commute in from the inland empire. LA is the second biggest city in the US, it should learn to act like it. If you want a big lawn, you are completely free to move somewhere (Indiana, for example) where property isn't as valuable and water isn't as scarce. Just because you own a house really doesn't mean you should be able to tell everyone else what to do with their property.
-
crash 03/03/2008 12:11:00 AM
Something like 50% of all water in SoCal is used for landscaping. So, again, it is the suburban model that is the problem.
Posted on Saturday, March 1, at 2:38 am by Bert Green
-------------------------------
Water is not a limiting factor. We need to change our water consumption laws.
Posted on Friday, February 29, at 7:53 pm by Jeremy Roberson
-------------------------------
Oh, PLEASE! It just goes to show that people will ignore statistics and studies when they want what they want. And just exactly why do you want unlimited people to come live here anyway? I simply don't get you people.
-
AARON NO ONE 03/02/2008 11:47:00 PM
CRAMMING SHEEP-
live on top of one another like rats in the cities of putrid waste you create. attempt to justify your socialist ethic by pretending your blue collar is more valuable than a doctor's white collar. class warfare. the poor who pay no income taxes hate the rich who pay them for you. war war war. kill each other, clawing gnashing teeth in traffic or empty eyes meeting on your trumpeted subways and piss-smelling buses. wake up sheep. on your way to the daily slaughter. wonderful you're all so self-important living in your box on the 58th floor of 115. sun supplements. growing house plants under your government mandated fluorescent lights. trying to flush yeterday's dinner down your 2.5 liter mandated flush toilet. can't fit a 2 x 4 in your public relations prius. refuse to eat beef, because you're saving the planet one sacrifice at a time. soon, your 1.5 high-density children will be overcome by 6, even poorer than you 3rd world sheep. you're all miserable. hate yourself. deny yourself. darwin had it wrong, survival of the fittest self-hater is the new political cool.
watch in defeated smoldering anger as those who love themselves constantly leave you in the dirt you so desperately pretend to preserve. fuck democrats. fuck liberals. fuck socialists. fuck communists, fuck you all for trying to run the lives of everyone but yourself.
-
jeff 03/02/2008 11:12:00 AM
Hey Ben, guess what: government DOES have a mandate to maintain the values of single family homes, and conversely, not to take actions which collapse their value. Every time neighbors protest some developer from putting up a house or project that ruins the neighborhood, the city officials claim their hands are tied because the property owner will sue his rights to develop the property are denied -- economic losses and all. This city is waiting for a megahuge class action law suit if it goes ahead with some of the plans, like putting highly dense buildings right next to single family homes. And Ben, at least you admire your class bias and jealousy, unlike some of the comments are so full of spite it's hard to believe even for "progressives." An odd word for people who want to regress the city into third-world status. What kind of dummies argue that having stable families in a city isn't better for it than just singles who don't own property, and poor illegals heavily dependent on social services (where are the taxes coming from as the middle class leaves? Why do you think the city is courting rich foreigners and retirees so desperately for those luxury condos and retailers? Because prop taxes are down and going down further as the more affluent leave and the poor and uncommitted move in). Are self-styled "progressives" really as ignorant and hostile to sound public policy as they sound here? Yeah, that's what some city planners and officials repping the dense east and south parts of the city want, but who's going to pay for their Robin Hood schemes when those with money move away or fight back? By the way, not all homeowners or family people are against subways and mass transit -- maybe some still are, like that infamous group around Cheviott Hills and parts of WLA, who still fight every little thing, but most people have wanted a metro for a very long time. We're the only major city without one and once it's extensive enough to get people around town, it will reduce traffic as most everyone wants. Does this mean the subway has to go outside mansions on Sunset in Beverly Hills? No, nor does it in any other city. There must be denser AND quieter areas, so stop your hatin' on property owners and families, or you'll have a city not worth living in. If you think Rio is so great, where the rich live in towers and have left the scenic hillsides to little homeless vagabonds who can be vicious even, and the streets are unsafe (Blade Runner) -- why don't you just move there instead. That's hour idea of a "progressive vision?"
-
True Progressive 03/02/2008 5:17:00 AM
What has the L.A. Weekly become????? Morris is to density what George W. is to weapons of mass destruction. This article is the most useless, offensive crap I've seen since 2Girls1Cup.
-
Tom 03/02/2008 4:54:00 AM
Morris of way off. When I opened a cafe in Silver Lake, the Chief Zoning Offical was great. He totally saved my small business and allowed me to stay in LA. Morris sounds like he has a personel beef.
-
Ben 03/02/2008 1:56:00 AM
Hoo boy. Lots of invective here. My mind will probably shift to the right once I DO own some property, but I just want to throw in that the government has no mandate to maintain single-home property values. Everyone has a right to campaign and protest in their own interest. But please don't assume that a)Having a family gives you a moral perogative, or that b)What's best for you is best for the city as a whole. It staggers me that ANYONE would support LA's urban status quo. Slow growth is fine, as long as it's growth. But if you hate the plans being made, present an alternative, don't just try to avoid any change at all. Reactionary conservative thinking is what got the Westside subway shut down all of those years ago... so please, don't demonize. Discuss.
-
suhina 03/02/2008 1:16:00 AM
People like Bob Coroselli, who gloat that "we outnumber you A-holes," that is the homeowners who moved here because L A has always had suburban pockets in the midddle of an urban setting, is typical of what's wrong with this city. Class envy like that and from some others here, people who never got it together to buy a home and want to destroy those who did, and then vote for shoebox high- rises with no parking to replace and ruin traditional neighborhoods, contribute to the net exodus Morris notes of middle-class, citizens and legal residents, often with families, in favor of poor Mexican/Hispanic immigrants (many illegal) and singles like him. Gee, wonder what that bodes for our city. Unless you're rich enough to afford private schools that cost over $20,000/kid (IF you can get it, there's fierce competition because LAUSD sucks), ruining the single-family neighborhoods is the last straw to urge anyone sane to move to cities like Manhattan Beach, Palos Verdes or cheaper Thousand Oaks.
-
robert pincus 03/01/2008 11:32:00 PM
Super piece. 1818 will prove a disaster for LA; more "affordable" housing will be lost than gained. I live in Studio City and await, with trepidation, the mega projects in North Hollywood and Universal City.
-
Bert Green 03/01/2008 12:38:00 PM
"LA can't-can not-afford more people because we don't-do not-have the water. What part of that equation don't you get while calling people "a-holes"?"
Something like 50% of all water in SoCal is used for landscaping. So, again, it is the suburban model that is the problem. With xeriscaping and conservation, our water supplies would support much more population density. It's a question of smarter use.
Any attempt to limit growth raises housing prices. The cynic in me suspects this is all about property owners (read, R-1 suburban homeowners) preserving their property values at the expense of everyone else. I call bullshit on Morris and Zev. Conservatives are never born, they are made.
-
Resident 03/01/2008 8:33:00 AM
Great article. One question: if "market rate" continues to be out of reach for most residents, will it ever go down?
-
Jeremy Roberson 03/01/2008 5:53:00 AM
"LA can't-can not-afford more people because we don't-do not-have the water. What part of that equation don't you get while calling people "a-holes"?"
Angelenos (4 million) use more water than New Yorkers (8 million). We waste more water than any other city in the world not named Scottsdale or Las Vegas.
Water is not a limiting factor. We need to change our water consumption laws.
-
crash 03/01/2008 3:59:00 AM
LA can't-can not-afford more people because we don't-do not-have the water. What part of that equation don't you get while calling people "a-holes"?
-
Will W. 03/01/2008 12:31:00 AM
Morris, you're completely out of touch with what our City wants. You probably play golf with George W. Either that, or water polo with Cheney.
Once again, I cannot believe what was once a rather progressive weekly newspaper has become so watered-down with misguided propaganda.
What you fear may be tepid public interference is actually wide-spread approval for the current sustainable initiatives our Planning Department is taking the lead on. We, as a City have the desire to become more livable and less automobile dependent.
I applaud the efforts of our current City government. For the first time in decades we are finally moving in the right direction.
-
JP 02/29/2008 9:35:00 PM
Morris is so misinformed I do not know where to begin.
The 80's zoning laws are the main reason we have so much sprawl and some of the worst traffic in the country. LA is too spread out, with too much low density, and relies too much on freeways for it's own good. That's what single-use zoning leads to. It is a failed experiment, and right now we are all living the consequences of it (traffic, smog, health problems, etc). Low-density, single-use zoning is a backwards, closed minded, and obsolete idea that many cities are putting to rest. It is high time we move on from the old way of thinking. Einstein said you can't solve a problem using the same thinking that got you into the problem. So why then would we fix LA by allowing people to sprawl out into the Inland Empire and outer valleys?
I agree that LA could do a better job of selecting which new high density projects to approve, but the concept of high density is not a bad one. Don't blame congestion on high density development. Blame congestion on our car culture, freeways, lack of viable public transit options (and lack of imagination).
-
cbs 02/29/2008 9:24:00 PM
Unfortunately, the author takes the stance that the "4.2 million cap" that was established in the 1960s somehow still reflects the sentiments of today. The reality is between population shifts and economic factors, the 4.2 million cap is neither "what everyone wants" nor is it even feasible considering the cost of living in small suburban homes with pools. The model needs to be updated. And while he does manage to point out the current trend of luxury condos providing no new stock to the majority of LA residents, the market will correct itself...much as it is doing right now. It's not density that City Hall needs to control, it's affordable housing.
-
KCQ 02/29/2008 11:21:00 AM
BRAVO?! Bravo Steven Leigh Morris? Yes, you've done it again alright SLM! You've once again completely screwed up by skewing the general, uneducated public into believeing that City Hall and the Planning Department are insidiously acting to undermine the future of this city. Talk about journalistic irresponsibility. I can't reconcile the fact that a publication that has Jonathan Goldman on its staff would choose someone like you - a theatre critic - to write its civic pieces.
As always, you seem to explain the planning concepts and policies into layman's terms alright but you sure as hell don't explain (or for that matter understand) the rationale for them very well. Just for the record, the Community Plan updates are necessary because the majority of them are antiquated plans that don't address the very real needs of the community. An example of this is the lack of density in areas that should have it. Should you ever find the time to actually understand urban planning concepts, placing density along transit corridors is ideal. And no, SB1818 is not some evil satanic code. It's just a state policy that hopefully will work by encouraing developers to build more affordable housing within proximity to transit.
Gail Goldberg and Jane Blumenfeld by the way are not the Devil and its henchman (that would be Zev actually). Gail and Jane are just folks who are passionate about making positive changes to this town. It's unfortunate that you just don't get it!
And how dare you hold Zev an anti-hero. I can't think of one single individual in recent history who has been more detrimetal to the health of this city and county. If you're looking for a slimey dirty politician, look no further than Zev Yarovslovsky. Maybe you should be of use for once by doing your next expose on what a slimebag he is.
-
Carlos 02/29/2008 11:03:00 AM
Meadows and rustic fields? Where exactly has Mr. Morris been doing research?
I find this article annoying for three reasons. It provides no alternative vision of growth in Los Angeles, it assumes all Angelenos share the author's sentiment, and it trumpets Yaroslavsky as a hero, whom I envision as a miserly, nagging old Westsider.
I would like to see greater density in Los Angeles coupled with public transportation, specifically rail. True, building luxury condos is ridiculous, but density in itself is not bad. It can be satisfying to live within easy reach of friends, street benches, and crumby markets.
Another thing, not all of us Angelenos moved here for swimming pools and lawns. This Angeleno was born in the city, without a pool, and prefers it that way.
-
Dan Caroselli 02/29/2008 9:48:00 AM
LA has the worst overcrowding of any city in the first world. LA is the largest industrial city in the first world. LA is the largest blue collar city in the first world.
Maybe these things weren't true when you bought your house, but.. sorry. The obsolete building codes on the books and the predominant NIMBY attitudes of the HOA's have kept this city from addressing it's real problems. And guess what, you A-holes are outnumbered now.
You've got three choices: leave. Work to help alleviate the housing crisis. Or be prepared when the rebellion comes knocking on your door.
-
Bert Green 02/29/2008 7:42:00 AM
Zev, the anti-growth, anti-transit, anti-change politician is left of center in your eyes? What a crock. This guy is afraid of the future and of urban spaces. He's a right wing obstructionist who wants to preserve a second-class status for transit users and urban residents.
Los Angeles is now post-suburban. The days of happy motoring and cheap gas are gone. Bury your head in the sand if you want, but I for one am glad to see this city grow up and face its urban future.
-
Amy Alkon, advicegoddess.com 02/29/2008 12:27:00 AM
Fantastic piece, great reporting. I just loved the bit from Goldberg interrogating Morris about what he'd written that might annoy her. This woman's a PUBLIC OFFICIAL. She owes the public the facts, and talking to reporters is part of that.
Venice is an area that's a mess from this kind of "growth" -- like a 70 seat restaurant that's going in near me. What about their parking? Well, they have 16 spaces..."on paper." On paper? Grandfathered in, but not actually in existence. So, where will the customers park? On the already clogged residential streets -- streets than aren't allowed to have permit parking thanks to the Coastal Commission. So, when my mostly-renting, largely single female neighbors come home late from working on a movie, toting, say, piles of photography equipment, like one of my neighbors...they'll be forced to search for parking far from their homes...in a neighborhood where there are still drugs and guns, despite the gentrification on Abbot Kinney.
-
Peggy Burgess 02/28/2008 9:58:00 PM
Bravo! Steven Morris has done it again! He has proven that there is still one "investigative reporter" left in L.A. Morris makes it abundantly clear that increased density and over-development are the mandate in Los Angeles and that it will be up to the Neighborhood Councils to take the initiative to protect the single family residential areas and green space within their boundaries, especially the few very low density properties left.
The North Hills West Neighborhood Council (NHWNC) is leading the way in that effort. This NC learned early on that the average homeowner was clueless about zoning, how City Planning works, how to make their voices heard or influence decisions on proposed undesirable development in their neighborhoods. The NHWNC has been relentless in its efforts to control density and prevent undesirable over-development within its boundaries To that end, the NHWNC Community Planning Committee is currently conducting a series of Neighborhood Development Workshops and survey meetings for North Hills West RA homeowners. The meetings are designed to educate and inform the stakeholders about zoning and uses allowed in the area, under the current and designated future zoning according to the Mission Hills-Panorama City-North Hills Community Plan. The Committee is surveying the residents as to what, if any, types of new residential development and density would be acceptable in their individual neighborhoods. Once all the RA neighborhoods have been surveyed and the residents have made their wishes known, the Committee will draft a Directed Development Plan for those areas. The plan will designate areas where no new development is supported and areas where some specific types of development would be acceptable. The Plan will also provide clear direction as to landscaping, streetscaping, preservation of old growth trees, design, construction, services, etc. Upon approval by the stakeholders and NHWNC Board of Governors, the final plan will be presented to the NHWNC Land Use Committee and the CD12 Council Office for use as a reference when they are approached by developers wishing to increase density in the very low and low density areas of North Hills West.. It is anticipated that the North Hills West Directed Development Plan will also be used as a guide for City Planning when the Mission Hills-Panorama City-North Hills Community Plan comes up for review in 2010.
If all the Neighborhood Councils would unite and collaborate in such an effort, they could in fact influence the way in which growth and density are controlled in the City of Los Angeles.
Peggy Burgess
North Hills West Homeowner-Stakeholder
-
Hector 02/28/2008 6:59:00 PM
Now I know why Councilman Garcetti has done so little to stop the huge mammoth development that is being built at Echo Park Ave. and Morton.
This article was an eye opener and is the closest we will get to open government in LA.
-
susan 02/28/2008 6:40:00 AM
Good article. Yes, it's a pity so few people are paying attention to what's happening. It's hard to know who's telling the truth re: AB1818, whether the city is downsizing the draconian state law to make it livable, as Goldberg and Jane Blumenthal and Garcetti & gang claim, or whether, as Zev claims, the city is going beyond what the awful state bill mandates.
Zev is a piece of work, he's the one who got Waxman to help halt the funds for the subway either because of the methane spill in 85, because of NIMBYs in Cheviott Hills and some Westside HOA's who didn't want the subway to go west (the same group obstructing every traffic solution to today), and/or because he wanted to punish the MTA for waste and mismanagement. (Something to do with it being controlled by allies of Gloria Molina and her husband at the time, if I recall correctly.) Ironically, Zev is now the one who can push the subway through, with his seat on the MTA and having been around 33 years, including creating the problems.
The PLUM Committee approving buildings with no parking, the "genius" of Reyes and Mike Woo, is a nightmare that few people are aware of, as article says. Jack Weiss opposed it, but the Hispanic and black members (frankly, this seems to come down to socio-economic, "rich vs. poor," "white vs. people of color") insist on it and see any attempts to block it as reactionary. My westside NC made a strong motion against the proposal, since anyone with a brain knows that shoving high-density housing in with no parking will aggravate an already bad problem, but to no avail.
Virtually every HOA and NC that is aware of it, from Silverlake/mid-Wilshire to the ocean, weighted in against, too. But Reyes and Woo have Goldberg's blessing apparently (a woman from San Diego who doesn't even know the fiber of L A), and since it's part of the bigger plan Garcetti & gang are pushing, it snuck quietly in, too. No wonder L A has the most middle-class leaving of any city -- combined with no decent schools in an LAUSD which is also crazily myopic and hostile to the westside and west valley, it's like a tsunami.
