LOS ANGELES | Downtown Project Rundown 6.0

[Wilcal]

Originally Posted by Mojeda101

Political talk.

Political talk or not, I did some reading about measure JJJ (which, by the way, is relevant to this forum), and although it seems to have passed I think that it of all issues (national, state, or local) will do more harm to the city's housing market. The sad thing is that Garcetti and others were in the process of developing a more rational plan for increasing housing for the betterment of all. JJJ, however, seems to be more a creation of very selfish self-interest groups.

[colemonkee]

Removed a bunch of posts because they are political, not directly related to downtown development, and purely prognostication at this point. While I share many of the same disappointments and concerns, let's keep things on topic.

[ChargerCarl]

Originally Posted by Mojeda101

Political talk.

Meh, it was all in relation to how it effect LA's economy. But whatever, it's a slippery slope I guess.

[ChargerCarl]

Originally Posted by Wilcal

Political talk or not, I did some reading about measure JJJ (which, by the way, is relevant to this forum), and although it seems to have passed I think that it of all issues (national, state, or local) will do more harm to the city's housing market. The sad thing is that Garcetti and others were in the process of developing a more rational plan for increasing housing for the betterment of all. JJJ, however, seems to be more a creation of very selfish self-interest groups.

Yeah Im not thrilled about JJJ either. It will only increase the development cost of market rate housing while providing an insignificant amount of affordable housing for the lucky few who are able to get it.

[Illithid Dude]

Measure JJJ is an important win if only because it's the best defense against the impending Neighborhood Integrity Initiative.

[citywatch]

Originally Posted by NativeOrange

Yup. An entire Victorian Era neighborhood torn down for a vertical office park.

actually, much of old bunker hill was very similar to & no more remarkable than this....





even when dtla was more of the center of the entire LA basin....& bunker hill had yet to be cleared out.....the city still wasn't being judged much more differently at that time than the way it would be yrs later.

were many ppl living in or visiting LA a long time ago saying they left their hearts in LA? Did they feel that way about the city the same way they felt about another town up north that had cable cars & a rust red colored bridge?

another thing to keep in mind.....there are lots of ppl in LA who'll think & vote the way fans of dtla would like. but those ppl still won't like the idea of moving their companies or their homes to dt. Some of them, however, may do exactly that. But many of them, so far, haven't.

many of them cling to hoods like samo or venice, or playa vista. or brentwood or century city. but anything east of La brea or vermont is not appealing to them.

that's even truer if they have school aged children & are very fussy about where they'll be going to school. Will there ever be a time when that's different? Will there ever be a time when such ppl help diversify the schools throughout the center of LA?





• Video Link

[Mojeda101]

Guys, I can't delete posts. The mods did it. I was simply stating their reasons.

[King Kill 'em]

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

Measure JJJ is an important win if only because it's the best defense against the impending Neighborhood Integrity Initiative.

With any hope courts will be able to gut out some of JJJ's really bad parts.

[losangelesnative]

http://www.ladowntownnews.com/news/f...ee63c1a01.html

Final EIR for streetcar released

[ocman]

A possible bright spot is that Trump seems to enthusiastically support high-speed rail. So hopefully it means his stance isn’t so different from Clinton’s when LA starts asking for Federal assistance. His challenge to get it through a Republican controlled Senate wouldn’t be any more difficult than for Clinton.


http://www.seattletimes.com/business...esident-trump/

[Doctorboffin]

^wow, that makes me feel a tiny bit better about the horrible results from last night.

[a very long weekend]

^ Trump's fond feelings for rail don't matter, considering the Congress will be run by Paul Ryan. The infrastructure they'll pass will be roads, which tracks with the fact of almost nk Republicans coming from cities and super majorities against Trump in virtually every large city.

We're going to have to do it ourselves.

Idk, I guess when the Trump/Ryan tax plans come in, we at the state level can hammer the wealthy for the tax the feds no longer collect.

[King Kill 'em]

Republicans have promised to eliminate federal funding for transit projects. They'll only be giving(wasting) money to(on) highway projects(tax money shredders).

[Spantik]

Doesnt part of Trump's 100 day plan involve cutting funding to samctuary cities? Should we be worried?

[Bikemike]

While I do somewhat sympathize with renters living in a volatile market, I also am against any and all forms of affordable housing. Ironically, every additional unit required as affordable housing is an additional contributor to the unaffordability of market-rate housing because the developer always ends up passing the forgone buck to their market-rate units anyway. It's always true that in the end the market ends up subsidizing the artificially low prices of deed-restricted units. Result: polarized housing prices. Problem exacerbated.

Also, affordable housing requirements diminish the investment potential perceived by the developer, making one less likely to take the risk of building more housing unless it's going to sell for luxury prices. Result: A self-defeating cycle where fewer units are built --> restricted supply --> even higher prices.

The fools who voted for JJJ thinking they are doing good are naive and ignorant.

Unfortunately life is unfair. The Westside, and especially Samo, Venice, Bev Hills, and MDR etc will always be desirable places to live. Noone should be able to demand the RIGHT to live in those areas for unnaturally low prices. Those who can should, and those who can't should live elsewhere as dictated by the free market. And good mass transit should link people to their jobs if they can't afford to live closer. The affordable housing and rent-control racket does more harm to the region's housing crisis than good, by doing the economic equivalent of forcing a square peg into a round hole.

[ChargerCarl]

My ideal solution would be a loosely regulated housing market (like Tokyo) + vouchers for those who need assistance.

[Bikemike]

LA's biggest challenge is finding a way to regulate where it matters, but without restricting supply. Our problem is not an issue of by-right housing vs zoning. It's an issue of zoning to hinder the production of supply. LA's got historical inertia working against a healthy production of housing supply. LA was built as an amalgamation of millions of 6000sf SFH fiefdoms bound by up-zoned commercial boulevards, all serviced by cars.

As a result, political power has historically derived from car-interests who want to perpetuate the zoning for auto uses (eg parking minimums, lane width's, curb cuts) they take as a god-given right, zoning requirements that they feel maintain their quality of life. Attempts to upzone density AFTER all of this physical inertia has been built (as in now-transit-dependent areas) are perceived as a threat to nearby preexisting car-interests and are routinely met with fierce resistance.

In an ideal world, upzoning for non-auto-serving density by, for instance, eliminating spatially inefficient, costly, and congestion-inducing parking minimums would happen overnight if hordes of property-owners could magically understand that not all density is bad and, in fact, good density actually exists. Unfortunately people in LA are generally not that insightful and are actually pretty ignorant. In short, making our zoning progressive will never voluntarily happen in LA, not as long as LA remains poorly educated about urban planning.

So it's not zoning more generally that's the problem, it's the political-entrenchment of auto-oriented zoning that keeps LA from making progress. By-right housing has obvious positives, namely organic growth, but it's a pipe dream for LA. But Toronto's an example of a city that has employs zoning to both maintain QOL while allowing for smart-growth and smart density.

Unfortunately LA continues to zone for and build 80's style dumb-density, even in downtown. The questions being asked in LA disappointingly continue to be "what are the trip-generators when X density is on Y plot of land, and how much parking and curb cutting is required". Once again as always, LA must ride the progressive-coattails of the more enlightened Northern counterparts in order to evolve, as LA seems ever unable to evolve on its own. Virtually ALL of the work to replace LOS and reform Caltrans has been spearheaded by Bay Area politicians. ALL of the initial adoption of LOS's replacement metrics are being adopted by municipalities north of Santa Barbara. I can guarantee that the initial move to reduce parking minimums will also start up North.

[bobcat]

Discussion on the Lucas Museum. Garcetti says Expo Park location won't need an EIR so it can get built more quickly there.

http://www.kcrw.com/news-culture/sho...s-vs-the-world

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

Originally Posted by Bikemike

While I do somewhat sympathize with renters living in a volatile market, I also am against any and all forms of affordable housing. Ironically, every additional unit required as affordable housing is an additional contributor to the unaffordability of market-rate housing because the developer always ends up passing the forgone buck to their market-rate units anyway. It's always true that in the end the market ends up subsidizing the artificially low prices of deed-restricted units. Result: polarized housing prices. Problem exacerbated.

Also, affordable housing requirements diminish the investment potential perceived by the developer, making one less likely to take the risk of building more housing unless it's going to sell for luxury prices. Result: A self-defeating cycle where fewer units are built --> restricted supply --> even higher prices.

The fools who voted for JJJ thinking they are doing good are naive and ignorant.

Unfortunately life is unfair. The Westside, and especially Samo, Venice, Bev Hills, and MDR etc will always be desirable places to live. Noone should be able to demand the RIGHT to live in those areas for unnaturally low prices. Those who can should, and those who can't should live elsewhere as dictated by the free market. And good mass transit should link people to their jobs if they can't afford to live closer. The affordable housing and rent-control racket does more harm to the region's housing crisis than good, by doing the economic equivalent of forcing a square peg into a round hole.

Exactly right

[Just-In-Cali]

Originally Posted by LosAngelesSportsFan

Exactly right

I can actually co-sign most of this. The goal for affordable housing is not to force developers to add it into their high end developments in the expensive parts of town. The city should incentivize building non luxury units in transit oriented hubs around the city. Not every development needs pools and spas and gyms and parking and high end retail. You'd be surprised how many people will happily live in a simple, well built apartment building within walking distance to transit.