LOS ANGELES | METRO Project Rundown 2.0 (non-downtown)

[ocman]

Editorial: Not again. AIDS nonprofit wants to block L.A.'s ambitious plan for desperately needed housing

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/stor...lement-lawsuit

BY THE TIMES EDITORIAL BOARD

Last fall, the Los Angeles City Council finally adopted an ambitious plan to help fix the city’s crippling housing shortage by making room in existing neighborhoods for nearly half a million new homes over the next eight years. So, of course, there’s now a lawsuit trying to halt the plan.

The AIDS Healthcare Foundation, a nonprofit based in Hollywood that often fights development, sued last month, arguing that the city violated state environmental law when it adopted the plan.

That’s the story of L.A. and much of California.

For decades, slow-growth, not-in-my-backyard opposition has obstructed much-needed housing construction, particularly in coastal urban areas, even while local economies and the population have continued to grow. That’s created a shortage that has driven up home prices and rents to levels that are unaffordable to the majority of Californians. With the problem at a crisis point, state and local leaders have started to make it easier to build new housing, but there is still strong pushback at every turn.


Oct. 14, 2021
Just look at Los Angeles, which has committed to one of the most extensive rezoning programs in the nation. Like all cities in California, L.A. is required to produce a voluminous document, called a Housing Element, that demonstrates how it will plan and zone for enough development to house its fair share of the state’s growing population. Cities aren’t required to construct the homes, but they have to adopt laws and policies that make it easier for the private sector to build market-rate and affordable housing.

In past years, many cities have done the bare minimum, adopting housing elements that have no basis in reality and with no intention to make room for more homes. But state lawmakers have added teeth to the “fair-share” housing law and required cities to analyze and try to address housing inequality and segregation.

As part of its new housing element, L.A. identified properties that could be developed for nearly 500,000 new units of housing, including nearly 185,000 units for lower-income residents. About half of the new units could be built under land-use plans and policies that are already underway. For the rest, the city will have to rezone thousands of properties to accommodate more homes over the next three years.

In its court filing, the AIDS Healthcare Foundation argues the city is planning too much housing and making it too easy for developers to build without an obligation to provide affordable housing, which could worsen displacement and homelessness.

That’s a reasonable concern, but the housing element commits the city to study policies that will require or encourage affordable housing in new development. The housing element just sets the targets and the overarching policies — now city leaders have to adopt policies, such as inclusionary zoning or stronger density bonuses. City leaders also have to decide exactly where to rezone properties to accommodate more homes. The plan also commits the city to strengthening tenant protections and the preservation of existing affordable housing. This will be controversial and challenging work.

The last thing L.A. needs is a lawsuit that could put progress on hold. This isn’t the first time the AIDS Healthcare Foundation has attempted to slow housing construction. In 2017, voters overwhelmingly rejected a ballot measure backed and funded by the foundation that would have curtailed certain large developments. In response to that effort, labor and housing advocates offered a counterproposal, Measure JJJ, to make it easier to build taller, denser buildings near rail stations and major bus stops if the projects include affordable housing. Voters passed that measure and it has helped add 8,000 units of affordable housing to the development pipeline. (A slow-growth group sued in an attempt to block that program too.)

Los Angeles is on the right track. Let’s hope lawsuits and the inevitable NIMBY opposition that will arise as the city attempts to rezone properties don’t derail the effort to ease the housing crisis.

[Blesha13]

Originally Posted by Doctorboffin

Google Earth was finally updated with the complete towers, so you can finally see their full height using the elevation tool.

They both stand 856 feet above sea-level, so from Avenue of the Stars and the podium they are on, they are roughly 562 feet tall, and from Solar Way they are 589 feet.

How often are Google Maps updated? Once a year, twice a year?

[colemonkee]

I hope everyone read that article. AHF is suing to stop the City from a plan that could potentially add an additional 92,500 affordable housing units over the next 8 years through rezoning. That's in addition to 92,500 affordable units that are already eligible within existing policy. AHF's reasoning is the City is not doing enough for affordable housing development, but they won't quantify what that number should be or how the City should do that. Classic Slippery Slope Fallacy that needs to be called out by more publications and groups.

[CaliNative]

Originally Posted by colemonkee

I hope everyone read that article. AHF is suing to stop the City from a plan that could potentially add an additional 92,500 affordable housing units over the next 8 years through rezoning. That's in addition to 92,500 affordable units that are already eligible within existing policy. AHF's reasoning is the City is not doing enough for affordable housing development, but they won't quantify what that number should be or how the City should do that. Classic Slippery Slope Fallacy that needs to be called out by more publications and groups.

And according to some posters it is possibly because the guy in charge doesn't want his view blocked by new hi rises, like the Hollywood Palladium residential project (is that project still a go, or is it now stalled?). If true, sounds like a reasonable use for non profit funds (not).

I wish all "NIMBY's" (and their cousins the anti-gentrifiers) would move out of CA. Then we would get the housing we need badly. Since when does limiting supply of new housing, including affordable microunits, lower the price? Violates economic law.

[caligrad]

The Onni tower in Long Beach seemed to have topped out. So far its ok. Needed but typical Onni design with pea soup colored glass.

[LAisthePlace]

I think it is a bit reductive and in most ways mischaracterizes Weinstein's POV to say he just doesn't want his view blocked (that may be a secondary, or tertiary reason).

From what I've read about him it seems that he truly believes that if you build new apartment buildings in anything but the richest neighborhoods, even if you build on parking lots you will be displacing people (i.e. indirect displacement) and that itself is reason enough to not build anything except deeply affordable housing. A debunked theory that causes more harm than good when it blocks much needed housing.

Its sort of a weird, reductive combination of NIMBY and PHIMBY (Public Housing in My Backyard) viewpoints which makes him the most dangerous man in trying to actually fix the housing crisis with more homes as well as build Los Angeles more sustainably and urbanly.

That being said, I think we on this board (and other like minded people who want to see more housing in Los Angeles) do our sides view a disservice when we reduce his viewpoint down to just not wanting his views blocked instead of the much more insidious reason.

I thought the LA Times Board Editorial (great to see them on the "good" side of the fight) put the argument against his POV quite well

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/stor...lement-lawsuit

Originally Posted by CaliNative

And according to some posters it is possibly because the guy in charge doesn't want his view blocked by new hi rises, like the Hollywood Palladium residential project (is that project still a go, or is it now stalled?). If true, sounds like a reasonable use for non profit funds (not).

I wish all "NIMBY's" (and their cousins the anti-gentrifiers) would move out of CA. Then we would get the housing we need badly. Since when does limiting supply of new housing, including affordable microunits, lower the price? Violates economic law.

[CaliNative]

Originally Posted by LAisthePlace

I think it is a bit reductive and in most ways mischaracterizes Weinstein's POV to say he just doesn't want his view blocked (that may be a secondary, or tertiary reason).

From what I've read about him it seems that he truly believes that if you build new apartment buildings in anything but the richest neighborhoods, even if you build on parking lots you will be displacing people (i.e. indirect displacement) and that itself is reason enough to not build anything except deeply affordable housing. A debunked theory that causes more harm than good when it blocks much needed housing.

Its sort of a weird, reductive combination of NIMBY and PHIMBY (Public Housing in My Backyard) viewpoints which makes him the most dangerous man in trying to actually fix the housing crisis with more homes as well as build Los Angeles more sustainably and urbanly.

That being said, I think we on this board (and other like minded people who want to see more housing in Los Angeles) do our sides view a disservice when we reduce his viewpoint down to just not wanting his views blocked instead of the much more insidious reason.

I thought the LA Times Board Editorial (great to see them on the "good" side of the fight) put the argument against his POV quite well

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/stor...lement-lawsuit

I was just paraphrasing the opinions of others. If you say getting a view blocked has little or nothing to do with the litigation, I accept your word since you seem very informed about the issue. But in any event, we need more housing, hopefully much of it affordable. We are on the same page with that. Maybe the government can get more involved with housing projects, hopefully better done than the cookie cutter ones built from the 1930s-1970s? Or public/private partnerships and tax incentives. Also, it should be easier to get micro-unit projects (under 500 sq. ft.) approved to reduce costs and rents.

[LAisthePlace]

Originally Posted by CaliNative

I was just paraphrasing the opinions of others. If you say getting a view blocked has little or nothing to do with the litigation, I accept your word since you seem very informed about the issue. But in any event, we need more housing, hopefully much of it affordable. We are on the same page with that. Maybe the government can get more involved with housing projects, hopefully better done than the cookie cutter ones built from the 1930s-1970s? Or public/private partnerships and tax incentives. Also, it should be easier to get micro-unit projects (under 500 sq. ft.) approved to reduce costs and rents.

Totally understood, I just see that talking point mentioned so much when Aids Healthcare Foundation/Michael Weinstein comes up I wish more of spotlight got put on the reasons for his anti-housing crusade beyond just not wanting his views being blocked.

Would love to see more housing of all kinds and think the best/"easiest" things the government can do is re-zone swaths of the city so you can actually build new housing, especially around transit which exactly what they are trying to do here (which Weinstein, sadly, is trying to block).

I'd love to see more public housing, but without help from the federal government I'm not sure how that would be feasible.

[ocman]

Originally Posted by LAisthePlace

I think it is a bit reductive and in most ways mischaracterizes Weinstein's POV to say he just doesn't want his view blocked (that may be a secondary, or tertiary reason).

From what I've read about him it seems that he truly believes that if you build new apartment buildings in anything but the richest neighborhoods, even if you build on parking lots you will be displacing people (i.e. indirect displacement) and that itself is reason enough to not build anything except deeply affordable housing. A debunked theory that causes more harm than good when it blocks much needed housing.

Its sort of a weird, reductive combination of NIMBY and PHIMBY (Public Housing in My Backyard) viewpoints which makes him the most dangerous man in trying to actually fix the housing crisis with more homes as well as build Los Angeles more sustainably and urbanly.

That being said, I think we on this board (and other like minded people who want to see more housing in Los Angeles) do our sides view a disservice when we reduce his viewpoint down to just not wanting his views blocked instead of the much more insidious reason.

I thought the LA Times Board Editorial (great to see them on the "good" side of the fight) put the argument against his POV quite well

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/stor...lement-lawsuit

I don't think it is reductive. rom what I read his foundation is controversial for many things not least of which for selling drugs to AIDS patients at market price (non-profits usually take a loss) and spending Medicare aid on politics. Weinstein is a sheister and I wouldn't put anything past him.

Quoted from another LA Times article :
Early in that fight, public affairs consultant Steve Afriat, who was lobbying City Hall on behalf of Crescent Heights, asked for a meeting with Weinstein to hear his concerns. Afriat said that during that meeting, Weinstein complained that the Palladium would block his views of the Hollywood Hills.

[CaliNative]

Originally Posted by ocman

I don't think it is reductive. rom what I read his foundation is controversial for many things not least of which for selling drugs to AIDS patients at market price (non-profits usually take a loss) and spending Medicare aid on politics. Weinstein is a sheister and I wouldn't put anything past him.

Quoted from another LA Times article :
Early in that fight, public affairs consultant Steve Afriat, who was lobbying City Hall on behalf of Crescent Heights, asked for a meeting with Weinstein to hear his concerns. Afriat said that during that meeting, Weinstein complained that the Palladium would block his views of the Hollywood Hills.

What is the current status of the Palladium project? Stalled? Canceled? Or still a go? I like that project..hope it gets built.

[kittyhawk28]

Originally Posted by CaliNative

What is the current status of the Palladium project? Stalled? Canceled? Or still a go? I like that project..hope it gets built.

Due to COVID, alot of projects proposed during 2017-19 have had development timelines delayed by a few years at least. Understandable why they haven't been moving too fast, the economic situation is still somewhat precarious despite the recovery.

[hughfb3]

While not specifically high-rise development, Onni continues progress on its Hollywood buildings. The Santa Monica blvd mid-rise was stalled for several months during COVID and has picked up pace. Also, the Security Bank Building at Hollywood+Cahuenga continues its adaptive reuse into a new boutique hotel. This precedes the coming 14 story office building to be constructed in the parking lot immediately north. With both of these projects moving forward, that gets us closer to the Vine Street Tower they have proposed



https://urbanize.city/la/post/onnis-...nica-boulevard

Below, you can see them working inside to clear away the interior. The Sharky's Restaurant in the second picture is what will be demolished for the coming 14 story office building




https://urbanize.city/la/post/onni-g...d-and-cahuenga

[hughfb3]

Urbanize just posted about the Sunset+Vine tower getting an additional 153 unit mid-rise apartment building on its perimeter.

https://urbanize.city/la/post/153-ap...ed-sunset-vine





This is a resurrection from the original 2006 CIM plans that included a mid-rise portion directly attached to the south side as an extension of the existing steel frame building. They later abandoned that portion and renovated the existing single floor commercial space that then became a Chipotle. Remember when the tower looked like this??



In addition to acquiring the tower, it looks like Saris-Regis may have assembled all of the buildings along the east and south east sharing the property line with the now complete Essex Apartment building. What do ya'll think?

[colemonkee]

Oof. Leave it to TCA to design something not even it's mother could love. I like the added density, especially in that area, but if we're gonna tear down some of those nice retail spaces on Sunset (I realize they are way under-zoned), at least replace them with something that doesn't take the worst design mistakes from Vancouver and amplify them by 11,000.

[hughfb3]

Originally Posted by colemonkee

Oof. Leave it to TCA to design something not even it's mother could love. I like the added density, especially in that area, but if we're gonna tear down some of those nice retail spaces on Sunset (I realize they are way under-zoned), at least replace them with something that doesn't take the worst design mistakes from Vancouver and amplify them by 11,000.

Right... I wish Kanner Architects were still around to complete and add on to their original vision for this tower. How did they ever see this building looking like this from what it looked like before.... and who would ever think to put billboards smack in the middle of the tower which double as walls for some of the bedrooms. The Luckman building on the sunset strip is the horizontal office version of this tower and it looks amazing. Mr. Kanner passed in 2010 and their work will live on. That gas station they did on Slauson is beautiful... and its a freakin gas station!

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

Originally Posted by colemonkee

Oof. Leave it to TCA to design something not even it's mother could love. I like the added density, especially in that area, but if we're gonna tear down some of those nice retail spaces on Sunset (I realize they are way under-zoned), at least replace them with something that doesn't take the worst design mistakes from Vancouver and amplify them by 11,000.

They are extremely good at putting out garbage architecture. It's remarkable how many times they can miss

[homebucket]

Originally Posted by hughfb3

What do ya'll think?

[colemonkee]

^ Haha! I actually don't think the tower is that bad, or nearly as scary as the doll.

hughfb3, is that the gas station on LaBrea and Slauson? If yes, I totally agree. One of a handful of gas stations around LA that are actually worth keeping due to being creative in their architecture. The one on Robertson and Olympic comes to mind as well.

LosAngelesSportsFan, even a broken clock is right twice a day. As such, TCA has decent designs once in a blue moon. This is most certainly not one of them.

[BrandonJXN]

Originally Posted by colemonkee

Oof. Leave it to TCA to design something not even it's mother could love. I like the added density, especially in that area, but if we're gonna tear down some of those nice retail spaces on Sunset (I realize they are way under-zoned), at least replace them with something that doesn't take the worst design mistakes from Vancouver and amplify them by 11,000.

I mean they didn't even try to incorporate the Sunset and Vine tower. There is a missed opportunity to maybe add a twin Sunset and Vine tower with midrise residences.

I like the Sunset and Vine tower a lot incidentally. It has a lot of local history (as well as being the star in 'Earthquake' which is one of the best disaster movies of all time). I remember when it caught on fire lol.

[plinko]

Originally Posted by colemonkee

hughfb3, is that the gas station on LaBrea and Slauson? If yes, I totally agree. One of a handful of gas stations around LA that are actually worth keeping due to being creative in their architecture. The one on Robertson and Olympic comes to mind as well.

Also the 76 Station at Santa Monica and Crescent. That parabolic roof is epic.