Nice neighborhoods in Los Angeles and McMansions (West Hollywood, Beverly Hills: 2014, apartments)

[lakit]

Many people may know that the Mid-City West area has been a favorite for the building of McMansions, replacing single family homes and duplexes built in the 1920's with oversized and out of character construction. Almost every block has had one or more built. Some argue that it is good for the neighborhood, usually those that are involved in selling or constructing them, while others, usually those already living in the neighborhood, find their living environment changed for the worse. I feel that if you purchase in this area,you are buying into the neighborhood. Yes, you should be able to rehab/remodel your home, but within reason. You should not be able to just come in, do a complete tear down and in its place put up a structure that destroys the character of the neighborhood and affects your neighbor's property in negative ways so that you can enjoy the "good life."

So it seems that now it is my block's turn to get one of these built. A 2-story single family 1920's house was recently sold without being listed. It was clear that those who did see the property were not interested in the house, only the property. It sold for over a million dollars, and the former owner told a neighbor it would be demolished/torn down.

45 years ago the houses in this neighborhood were going to be demolished for a freeway that ended up never being built. At that time, not considered a particularly desirable neighborhood to live in. Now that it is a very desirable neighborhood, it looks like they will be demolished because the city is allowing it to be done. Supposedly these new houses are "greener"--but a house 2 or 3 times the size of what was there originally may still be using more services, water, utilities and producing more waste. But when the new house sells for 2-3 million dollars, the tax revenue the city receives is way more than what it currently receives, especially if that house has been owned for many years by the same owner.

So any thoughts? Should this type of building be allowed to continue at the break neck pace that is occurring now, or should there be some limits put in place? Is this just "progress" or should communities be banding together to preserve their unique character?

[MordinSolus]

I'm not a fan of McMansions(they generally look cookie-cutter and take up most of the lot, which makes everything look more crowded) but I'm not aware of them bringing down the property values of nearby homes or using more energy than old homes. Those houses built in the 20s, smaller though they may be, leak like sieves. They are inefficient as all get out so heating/cooling is MUCH more energy intensive and old plumbing, generally clay pipes, crack and leak water and waste into the ground, adding inefficiency and property damage.
If someone wants to tear down an old house to build a McMansion then let them. Telling people what they can and can't do with their own property because you like other things is ridiculous. It's their house, not yours. You don't have the right to only see houses you like.

[timtemtym]

What area are you around? The area where they were going to put the 710 through? Or an area where they were to build the 170 La Cienega Freeway? Or up in the valley where they were going to put the Whitnall Freeway?

There are areas where beautiful old bungalows and craftsman houses were built. Then there are endless blocks of tacky stucco 50's era homes. We have a surplus of those in LA so if they want to redo them to McMansions, God bless them. Also anywhere near a current or potential subway/light rail stop will likely be redone to add density and reflect rising property values.

Cities change and grow and Los Angeles has a severe housing shortage, so if developers want to come in and take down a few houses (that they paid for) and build for greater density, I think LA should encourage that. Let's protect the open spaces and parks that we have, but rethink the places that were built for lower density. Obviously a McMansion doesn't increase density, but we have too many regulations on who can build what where and how.

If we had fewer regulations on what can get built, then we would have probably already added enough new units to cool off this price bubble.

[lakit]

Originally Posted by MordinSolus

I'm not a fan of McMansions(they generally look cookie-cutter and take up most of the lot, which makes everything look more crowded) but I'm not aware of them bringing down the property values of nearby homes or using more energy than old homes. Those houses built in the 20s, smaller though they may be, leak like sieves. They are inefficient as all get out so heating/cooling is MUCH more energy intensive and old plumbing, generally clay pipes, crack and leak water and waste into the ground, adding inefficiency and property damage.
If someone wants to tear down an old house to build a McMansion then let them. Telling people what they can and can't do with their own property because you like other things is ridiculous. It's their house, not yours. You don't have the right to only see houses you like.

It can be the case that an old 1920's house that has had no work done has a lot of issues, but many of the houses in this area have been remodeled/upgraded using the existing structure (or at least its footprint) and are beautiful and modernly functional inside and out. Of course, many houses are in their original state and the costs and work involved to upgrade and retain their character may seem less appealing then tearing them down and building something brand new and bigger.

Also why does everything have to be an extreme? Too little regulation or too much? Why can't there be some common sense middle ground? Just because you want things your way, doesn't mean you always get to do them. Same for me. Sometimes we need to compromise for the overall good of the community.

[lakit]

Originally Posted by timtemtym

What area are you around? The area where they were going to put the 710 through? Or an area where they were to build the 170 La Cienega Freeway? Or up in the valley where they were going to put the Whitnall Freeway?

There are areas where beautiful old bungalows and craftsman houses were built. Then there are endless blocks of tacky stucco 50's era homes. We have a surplus of those in LA so if they want to redo them to McMansions, God bless them. Also anywhere near a current or potential subway/light rail stop will likely be redone to add density and reflect rising property values.

Cities change and grow and Los Angeles has a severe housing shortage, so if developers want to come in and take down a few houses (that they paid for) and build for greater density, I think LA should encourage that. Let's protect the open spaces and parks that we have, but rethink the places that were built for lower density. Obviously a McMansion doesn't increase density, but we have too many regulations on who can build what where and how.

If we had fewer regulations on what can get built, then we would have probably already added enough new units to cool off this price bubble.

Actually, the area is where the Beverly Hills freeway was supposed to be--it was supposed to connect the 2/101 to the 405 and would have cut through a large chunk of the neighborhoods west of Silver Lake, including the northern parts of Larchmont/Hancock Park, Melrose, West Hollywood, and of course Beverly Hills. The houses in this area are of various architecture styles, mostly Spanish, but the majority were built in the 1920's-1930's. Many have been upgraded and remodeled in a respectful way, but of course many haven't, and many of the older houses do have significant issues that may take more work than simply tearing down and building something new and bigger.

Density is fine, but I don't think you have to take out every single low density neighborhood and open space/ park that we have to make Los Angeles more dense. It can be done with some thought and planning, instead of haphazardly taking a property here and there. Density building is brought up constantly as the antidote to Los Angeles' expensive housing costs, and clearly McMansions don't fit that bill. But neither do the houses, apartments, and condos being built either. They are almost always billed as "luxury"--definitely not affordable or meant for the masses.

[MordinSolus]

Originally Posted by lakit

Just because you want things your way, doesn't mean you always get to do them. Same for me. Sometimes we need to compromise for the overall good of the community.

Why is it that you think you know what's best for the community and that others do not? Do you hold yourself in such high esteem that your opinion is the only one with merit?

[DetailSymbolizes]

Originally Posted by lakit

Sometimes we need to compromise for the overall good of the community.

Uh-oh, it's one of those "the greater good" zombies....


The Greater Good - YouTube

[lakit]

Here is a link to a Los Angeles Times article on the issue of mansionization.

L.A. councilman proposes tightening rules against 'mansionization'*-*Los Angeles Times

[majoun]

Originally Posted by lakit

They are almost always billed as "luxury"--definitely not affordable or meant for the masses.

There's such a glut of "luxury" apartments and condos that you'd think the prices would come down and become affordable.

[timtemtym]

Originally Posted by majoun

There's such a glut of "luxury" apartments and condos that you'd think the prices would come down and become affordable.

Very true! Years ago they were way overbuilding luxury apartments in Houston and luxury prices went way down for a few years after. I got a very beautiful place in a hip hood for 1050. Now the market is back up and they're back to building more.