Gentle reader, If you drive around Los Angeles, you’ll see a lot of new development, and much of that is essentially the same project: a dense apartment or co-living complex built flush to the sidewalk, taller than anything on the block, usually clad in
Mar 29, 2023Liked by Esotouric's Secret Los Angeles
My father's pharmacy was in the area that you are trying to save. Maybe I am one of the few people still around that remembers and cherishes this part of Los Angeles. High rises and crowding for making profit is a short sighted way to slowly abolish the integrity of this city.
I don't doubt there is corruption happening, and of course I support tenant protection laws. That doesn't change the underlying fact that development has been absolutely stymied for years. If you don't continue to build housing the older housing that would be naturally affordable by virtue of being old does not exist. That does not mean there are not individual exceptions. Focusing on those exceptions does not change the overall trend. Personally I subscribe to the City Planning newsletter and there are only about 12k unit permits issued per year including ADUs -- and that is up in recent years.
I would argue, rather than a market that's artificially manipulated to benefit development, a system that's artificially manipulated to prevent development and allows far too much influence from existing residents -- who often were lucky enough to buy when it was cheap or live in rent control apartments, for which there is no qualification other than longevity.
Economists are quite unified in noting the lack of housing development over the past 40 years in LA. (Happy to dig some up for you) That is also a nationwide trend.
I don't doubt there are instances you note that it is good to bring attention to. But I would be extremely curious as to why you literally decry data that is widely held by economists and apparent to anyone trying to rent an apartment here as "fraudulent." That is quite a charge to make and I would be interested in seeing your competing data set.
Everyone on this list is here because they have an instinct to preserve valuable buildings, but I have to say I am disappointed to see the implied lack of support for additional housing in LA when we are in a statewide housing crisis that has contributed to homelessness and unaffordable living in this city we all love. Economists estimate LA needs 500,000 units ASAP and I hope people will bear that in mind when criticizing new developments. That has to remain a huge priority.
Please note those "ugly" buildings often contain at least 15% affordable housing -- and upward from there -- and contribute to helping the housing shortfall.
Give it eighty years once those developments with retail on the base have all but disappeared and I am quite sure whatever preservation society exists then will desperately be trying to save the remaining ones, after nostalgia has set in.
My father's pharmacy was in the area that you are trying to save. Maybe I am one of the few people still around that remembers and cherishes this part of Los Angeles. High rises and crowding for making profit is a short sighted way to slowly abolish the integrity of this city.
Thank you for trying to safe what is indigenous to Los Angeles. I am impressed and proud of your efforts to help us remember who we are and our past.
I don't doubt there is corruption happening, and of course I support tenant protection laws. That doesn't change the underlying fact that development has been absolutely stymied for years. If you don't continue to build housing the older housing that would be naturally affordable by virtue of being old does not exist. That does not mean there are not individual exceptions. Focusing on those exceptions does not change the overall trend. Personally I subscribe to the City Planning newsletter and there are only about 12k unit permits issued per year including ADUs -- and that is up in recent years.
I would argue, rather than a market that's artificially manipulated to benefit development, a system that's artificially manipulated to prevent development and allows far too much influence from existing residents -- who often were lucky enough to buy when it was cheap or live in rent control apartments, for which there is no qualification other than longevity.
Economists are quite unified in noting the lack of housing development over the past 40 years in LA. (Happy to dig some up for you) That is also a nationwide trend.
I don't doubt there are instances you note that it is good to bring attention to. But I would be extremely curious as to why you literally decry data that is widely held by economists and apparent to anyone trying to rent an apartment here as "fraudulent." That is quite a charge to make and I would be interested in seeing your competing data set.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_housing_shortage
Is someone working on a HCM nomination?
Everyone on this list is here because they have an instinct to preserve valuable buildings, but I have to say I am disappointed to see the implied lack of support for additional housing in LA when we are in a statewide housing crisis that has contributed to homelessness and unaffordable living in this city we all love. Economists estimate LA needs 500,000 units ASAP and I hope people will bear that in mind when criticizing new developments. That has to remain a huge priority.
Please note those "ugly" buildings often contain at least 15% affordable housing -- and upward from there -- and contribute to helping the housing shortfall.
Give it eighty years once those developments with retail on the base have all but disappeared and I am quite sure whatever preservation society exists then will desperately be trying to save the remaining ones, after nostalgia has set in.