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
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.
We have no competing data set, and no time or inclination to develop one. Our work is by its nature anecdotal and narrative, and we feel called to tell the stories we tell because the local press is not doing it. We simply document evidence of land use corruption and artificial scarcity, and the direct impact this has on quality of life and the ability to survive in Los Angeles, even as the population declines.
It's not clear that an individual designation is required to have some protection here, but it couldn't hurt to shine more light on this building as a district contributor. Let's be hopeful and keep our eyes open.
I'm going to do some research but I've heard that Planning (& CRA?) have fewer mechanisms to manage proposed projects than in the past. I'll share what I find with you.
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.
People subscribe to our list for many reasons, not just because they care about historic preservation. But one thing that binds us and the L.A. preservation activists who are part of our loose network together together is a strong desire to protect naturally occurring affordable housing. In the years we have been doing this work, we have documented so many historic, affordable residential buildings that are illegally emptied out and held vacant for years, as well as new apartment projects that are used for non-residential purposes or held vacant, presumably as a form of money laundering.
The housing numbers that are widely circulated for Los Angeles are, we believe, flawed and fraudulent. There is likely enough housing here now to provide homes for those who live here and need a place. Enforcement of existing tenant protection law and implementation of new policies to make it not pencil out to hoard empty apartments could change things enormously in Los Angeles. If and when that happens, we'll be very interested in seeing what development and preservation look like, in a market that's not artificially manipulated to benefit development.
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.
Thank you! The past is a good friend to all of us.
Save not safe typo
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
We have no competing data set, and no time or inclination to develop one. Our work is by its nature anecdotal and narrative, and we feel called to tell the stories we tell because the local press is not doing it. We simply document evidence of land use corruption and artificial scarcity, and the direct impact this has on quality of life and the ability to survive in Los Angeles, even as the population declines.
Is someone working on a HCM nomination?
Not that we know of, but if you or anyone would like to do that, please keep us posted.
I'm not hopeful without something being filed. It will give Planning a stronger position with a formal application. : (
It's not clear that an individual designation is required to have some protection here, but it couldn't hurt to shine more light on this building as a district contributor. Let's be hopeful and keep our eyes open.
I'm going to do some research but I've heard that Planning (& CRA?) have fewer mechanisms to manage proposed projects than in the past. I'll share what I find with you.
We are grateful for your concern and attention to this. Thank you!
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.
Thanks for sharing your perspective, Nancy.
People subscribe to our list for many reasons, not just because they care about historic preservation. But one thing that binds us and the L.A. preservation activists who are part of our loose network together together is a strong desire to protect naturally occurring affordable housing. In the years we have been doing this work, we have documented so many historic, affordable residential buildings that are illegally emptied out and held vacant for years, as well as new apartment projects that are used for non-residential purposes or held vacant, presumably as a form of money laundering.
The housing numbers that are widely circulated for Los Angeles are, we believe, flawed and fraudulent. There is likely enough housing here now to provide homes for those who live here and need a place. Enforcement of existing tenant protection law and implementation of new policies to make it not pencil out to hoard empty apartments could change things enormously in Los Angeles. If and when that happens, we'll be very interested in seeing what development and preservation look like, in a market that's not artificially manipulated to benefit development.