By Michael Goldstein
By Dennis Romero
By Sarah Fenske
By Matthew Mullins
By Patrick Range McDonald
By LA Weekly
By Dennis Romero
By Simone Wilson
His plan included two observation towers, a palm grove, and a cylindrical glass hall where the City Council would meet. A 13-member jury unanimously picked the project, which was estimated to cost $24.5 million.
Sherman moved from Boston to turn his vision into reality but soon found himself caught up in a community revolt. The Sierra Club opposed the project because it was to be built in a park. The park was on the western edge of the city, which angered residents on the city's less affluent eastern side.
A majority of the City Council dug in and defended the project, while opponents started gathering signatures for a referendum. Two years after the design was awarded, the referendum passed and the project died.
Sherman's beautiful plans never left the drawing board.
Sherman stayed in Los Angeles, designing innovative projects here and across the country. But he still bore the scars of his first encounter in West Hollywood.
For a working architect, it's not uncommon to have one's vision compromised or shredded by stakeholder opposition. And yet, Sherman found that architecture school had left him ill-prepared for the political dimension of the job.
He brooded on the experience for years, puzzling over its lessons with his students at the Southern California Institute of Architecture and UCLA. His ideas eventually grew into a book, L.A. Under the Influence: The Hidden Logic of Urban Property, which tries to nudge the profession toward a better understanding of politics.
"Ultimately, it's unavoidable," Sherman said. "You're gonna all go through the meat grinder . . . It becomes very Sisyphean. You're forever rolling a boulder up a hill, and somebody will inevitably dash your hopes."
The book, published in June by The University of Minnesota Press, argues that architects need to take on the role of mediators of development disputes. Through design, they can incorporate competing interests and arrive at a project that is more complex and interesting because it reflects the bargaining process that created it — rather than just the architect's initial vision.
In effect, he claims that NIMBYism can be harnessed to improve design. It's a message that has particular resonance in Los Angeles, where development disputes are the primary mode of civic engagement.
It's no surprise, then, that for inspiration Sherman turns to a dozen or so locations around L.A. The sites each represent accidents of planning — where, for some reason, officials failed to segregate competing uses into their separate sphere. They could be considered nuisances, but to Sherman, they point the way forward.
Consider, for example, the famous case of Hugo's Plating. In the 1970s, the owners of the plating shop refused to sell to make way for the Pacific Design Center. So the center was built around the tiny tar-paper shack, and ficus trees were planted to conceal it.
In one sense, it was an eyesore. But it was also a startling oddity, and over the years it became a cultural landmark — until the owners finally agreed to sell, and it was demolished.
That's the kind of thing that Sherman is celebrating.
"You may think the nuisance is ugly," he said. "But it's also fascinating. It's a view into how the process occurs."
He also writes about things like oil derricks and billboards, which abut and coexist with shops and apartments. For example, there is a two-story house on 8th Street in Westlake, close to MacArthur Park, which has a V-shaped billboard across the front of the second story.
An eyesore? Sure. But Sherman notes that the billboard shades the second-story porch, and the access ladder can be used as a fire escape. It's a visible negotiation. It's architecture.
Sherman's great nemesis is not community opposition, but rather the planning profession and zoning laws. In his view, planning rules exist to suppress the kind of conflict that he wants to expose.
"If you assume the neighborhood is your opponent, then zoning is used as a form of prophylactic to take all friction away from the urban development process," Sherman said. "It takes away the life of what makes cities cities."
He argued that cities would be better off without any zoning rules at all. Failing that, he said cities ought to have "free zones," where pretty much anything goes –— effectively the opposite of an overlay zone where rules are more strict.
It's at this point that you can feel the churning stomachs of neighborhood association presidents. Without height limits, usage restrictions, and setback requirements, what leverage would they have to influence a project?
Well, there are still planning boards and elected officials who can require the parties to sort their differences. But without arbitrary zoning rules in place, Sherman argues, that sorting out can become a more creative and dynamic process.
Consider how it works now. Developers have an incentive to put up a big box that maximizes the zoning envelope. That proposal is used as a threat against the neighbors, and the end result is some compromised version of the original plan.
Find everything you're looking for in your city
Find the best happy hour deals in your city
Get today's exclusive deals at savings of anywhere from 50-90%
Check out the hottest list of places and things to do around your city