Gentrification and Affordable Housing in LA (Los Angeles, Alameda: fit in, sale, 2014)

[jm1982]

Gentrification and affordable housing can coexist in Los Angeles: Richard J. Riodan and Tim Rutten

Don't know if anybody caught this article in the Daily News, but it talks about a lot of issues brought up on this board often.

These parts I thought were particularly interesting:

"61 percent of Boston has gentrified over the past decade, 55 percent of Seattle, 46 percent of New York and 23 percent of Los Angeles. However, because 51 percent of L.A.’s census tracts currently have home values beneath the metropolitan area’s median price, the potential for growing gentrification here is clear."
I have thought of this a lot as well. Outside of relatively small areas of the city , it's hard to claim that L.A is "totally gentrified" much easier to make the argument that NYC is .


If the city really wants to help these families, it needs to go beyond making land available in areas close to jobs and public transit. It also ought to revise its zoning regulations to allow greater densities on the banked parcels and, particularly, family-sized variations on the sort of well-designed micro units that have proven quite successful in the Bay Area and Seattle.
Depending on the mix of sizes and assuming the construction of three-story buildings, 150-200 such compact apartments can comfortably fit into an acre of land at a construction cost of less than $60,000 each. A banked three-acre site adjacent to a transit hub might contain two such structures and a one-acre park to provide a common garden and recreation space for all the residents. There’s nothing mutually incompatible about affordability and a decent living environment — and freed of outdated regulation, private development can provide both.
This is definitely an interesting idea if it was done right. But I don't know if the city has much money to do such a thing, this should of been planned for a long time ago if they wanted to land bank..before prices went up so much. Allowing greater densities seems the way to go, but there will always be a fight against it because our traffic is so bad.

[nightlysparrow]

Would be nice.

However, recent news about increased quake risk in LA would make builders think twice. Not only liability, but the increased cost of adding stability.

Graphic
L.A.?s hidden dangers - Data Desk - Los Angeles Times

[munchitup]

Originally Posted by jm1982

Gentrification and affordable housing can coexist in Los Angeles: Richard J. Riodan and Tim Rutten

Don't know if anybody caught this article in the Daily News, but it talks about a lot of issues brought up on this board often.

These parts I thought were particularly interesting:

"61 percent of Boston has gentrified over the past decade, 55 percent of Seattle, 46 percent of New York and 23 percent of Los Angeles. However, because 51 percent of L.A.’s census tracts currently have home values beneath the metropolitan area’s median price, the potential for growing gentrification here is clear."
I have thought of this a lot as well. Outside of relatively small areas of the city , it's hard to claim that L.A is "totally gentrified" much easier to make the argument that NYC is .


If the city really wants to help these families, it needs to go beyond making land available in areas close to jobs and public transit. It also ought to revise its zoning regulations to allow greater densities on the banked parcels and, particularly, family-sized variations on the sort of well-designed micro units that have proven quite successful in the Bay Area and Seattle.
Depending on the mix of sizes and assuming the construction of three-story buildings, 150-200 such compact apartments can comfortably fit into an acre of land at a construction cost of less than $60,000 each. A banked three-acre site adjacent to a transit hub might contain two such structures and a one-acre park to provide a common garden and recreation space for all the residents. There’s nothing mutually incompatible about affordability and a decent living environment — and freed of outdated regulation, private development can provide both.
This is definitely an interesting idea if it was done right. But I don't know if the city has much money to do such a thing, this should of been planned for a long time ago if they wanted to land bank..before prices went up so much. Allowing greater densities seems the way to go, but there will always be a fight against it because our traffic is so bad.

Interesting article and great points raised.

I have one question, and bear with me if it's a dumb one, but what does a "banked site" mean?

[jm1982]

I took it to mean a site that is "land banked" basically when a government or nonprofit organization buys up land for future development . I don't know if L.A has done this or not..but it seems like it's a bit too late at these high prices.

This is some info on land banks
What Is A Land Bank?

I know that land banking is done in different cities. It has been used very successful in Cincinnati in an area called Over the Rhine. This is an area that was very high crime and had a terrible reputation, but now people are buying expensive lofts and there are tons of hip restaraunts and bars....I haven't been there but it sounds similar to DTLA in ways.

It's also a historic area similar DTLA

This is what was done over there
". When 3CDC started its work, there were 500 vacant buildings, 700 vacant lots and 1,667 vacant housing units within these boundaries. One of 3CDC’s first steps was to invest $27 million to land bank more than 300 buildings and lots so they would not suffer from further deterioration before redevelopment could occur."

These properties were dirt cheap and now people are buying places like this , one what used to be run down buildings or vacant almost worthless land

1237 Vine Street #4, Cincinnati OH - Trulia

As you can see this property is super cheap..especially by L.A standards
272 West McMicken Avenue, Cincinnati OH - Trulia

But if you look at the sale history..it sold for $15,000 in 2010..and $3,000...yes $3,000 in 2007!

It's pretty easy to see that these areas can appreciate like crazy and have.

Also these are not "one off" weird deals..if you look at price histories you will see that's the norm.

It's similar to how I mentioned Westside (LA) homes have gone up pretty much 300% or more since the late 1990s .

[True Freedom]

uber-high density housing could be cool if we had transit density like Tokyo.. but we don't.
And until we do, high density housing in LA is a bad idea.

[yby1]

I wonder if California would consider high speed freight rail in the future and if that would help alleviate some congestion.

[True Freedom]

Originally Posted by yby1

I wonder if California would consider high speed freight rail in the future and if that would help alleviate some congestion.

Rail out of the port of LA would be a huge benefit; however, neighborhoods along the route have been fighting it.
Has to be better than thousands of diesels, tho

[jamills21]

Originally Posted by yby1

I wonder if California would consider high speed freight rail in the future and if that would help alleviate some congestion.

Alameda Corridor

[yby1]

Originally Posted by jamills21

Alameda Corridor

Hopefully they can get more rail down soon, but I know it's cost prohibitive.