Would you care if L.A. eventually started killing it's inner suburbs to make way for more density? (Los Angeles: apartment, rental)

[sll3454]

Originally Posted by GatsbyGatz

I wouldn't mind if LA razed all the small, ugly stucco buildings in the East and South to make way for high-density living. In fact, move southward and redo all of South LA and Compton for high-density, middle-class structures.

Who is this "Los Angeles" and does he own the buildings this thread talks of razing?

If you (plural) are talking about developers seeing an opportunity, buying property from owners willing to sell, and building something, some of that could be good.

If it would involve use of eminent domain, then No, it shouldn't be done, and Yes, I would care.

[munchitup]

Originally Posted by OyCrumbler

We have more than enough parking lots and brown lots we can fill without touching any historic architecture. I like some of the SFHs that exist in Los Angeles and think they're good to keep as historic reminders of what they are as well as giving future generations patches of interest in the city.

Seems like this is what is mostly happening. There are enough abandoned commercial lots and industrial areas that infill can be accomplished without tearing down any residential areas. The single family homes in Central LA provide an interesting contrast (I'm thinking the area in West Hollywood in particular) to neighborhoods that are mostly multi-family housing.

[BRinSM]

Back to the OPs original question, this has already happened. Pretty much every major street in LA is now lined with apartment buildings. behind these apartment buildings is often neighborhoods of single family homes. from where i'm sitting in sherman oaks, i can see this all around me. i see a neighborhood of post war homes right behind a stretch of 2-4 story apartment buildings (this is just off ventura blvd btw). from the architecture, it's pretty obvious that these apartment buildings came after the houses, which leads me to believe that there were SFHs on these properties before apartments were ever considered. And i've seen this all over the city, from the valley to the westside and even the more central parts of town. it's all about zoning. at some point in the history of LA, the city council decided that properties abutting major boulevards could be zoned for multifamily housing and developers jumped on this opportunity. in fact this reminds me of a family member who grew up in west LA way back in the 40s/50s. I asked them one time if they ever go back and look at the house they grew up in. The mentioned that it's now an apartment building. so there you go, LA has been experiencing infill density for decades now.

[Chicano3000X]

Originally Posted by BRinSM

Back to the OPs original question, this has already happened. Pretty much every major street in LA is now lined with apartment buildings. behind these apartment buildings is often neighborhoods of single family homes. from where i'm sitting in sherman oaks, i can see this all around me. i see a neighborhood of post war homes right behind a stretch of 2-4 story apartment buildings (this is just off ventura blvd btw). from the architecture, it's pretty obvious that these apartment buildings came after the houses, which leads me to believe that there were SFHs on these properties before apartments were ever considered. And i've seen this all over the city, from the valley to the westside and even the more central parts of town. it's all about zoning. at some point in the history of LA, the city council decided that properties abutting major boulevards could be zoned for multifamily housing and developers jumped on this opportunity. in fact this reminds me of a family member who grew up in west LA way back in the 40s/50s. I asked them one time if they ever go back and look at the house they grew up in. The mentioned that it's now an apartment building. so there you go, LA has been experiencing infill density for decades now.

in terms of commercial.
I think it would be better for the blvds to just get rid of the strip mall parking lots. Those are a huge eye sore. The architecture of L.A. is so bland because the majority is from the 80's.

LA is so slow at developing though. I'm gonna be 50 by the time it's done. Too old to enjoy it..

[Marv101]

That's exactly what's been going on here for decades, since developers run this city and have everybody from the Mayor on down in their hip pockets.

Look no farther than the 'massacre' currently going on in Hollywood; folks who have lived there for decades are being forced to move due to rampant overdevelopment which has caused or will cause rents to skyrocket and make the area unaffordable for the folks who've lived there for the past 3-4 decades.

[kttam186290]

Originally Posted by Chicano3000X

City-Data.com


Not to mention suburbia has alot to do with white flight and the decline of our downtown areas. So suburbia is a spoiled mentality that killed our cities for decades. Now everyone wants back in. Younger people want out of the dull existence in the suburbs and experience something more real.

Yeah, until they decide that they want to start a family and don't want to live like rats in a box or live in a house built in the 1920s with rotten plumbing, crumbling walls albeit a nice paint job and IKEA window dressing .

People move to the suburbs for the "three S's": Space, Safety and Serenity. And because you can get something that wasn't built during the Prohibition Era. Yeah, I'm a cheerleader for the suburbs. Can't deny it...

There will always be people who want the city life at some point in their lives, which is why urban planners have been trying to build those lofts and "mixed use" developments in Hollywood and parts of the Valley. But at the end of the day, unless you live in and own your own house on a parcel in the Santa Monica mountains or Laural Canyon, you're always going to be subject to rising rent, rising HOA fees, the clatter of footsteps overhead, the noise of sirens, helicopters and car horns.

[BRinSM]

Originally Posted by Chicano3000X

in terms of commercial.
I think it would be better for the blvds to just get rid of the strip mall parking lots. Those are a huge eye sore. The architecture of L.A. is so bland because the majority is from the 80's.

LA is so slow at developing though. I'm gonna be 50 by the time it's done. Too old to enjoy it..

your original question wasn't about aesthetics, it was about density. LA is pretty dense in many areas, it's just built different than other large cities that have been around longer. my advice is to pretty up the little piece of land that you live on and let the property owners of LA do as they wish with their land.

[LizzyNola]

YES!

I would care!
I want Los Angeles to look like Los Angeles, and I cherish the old neighborhoods as they are, which are a part of our culture and charm.

[munchitup]

Originally Posted by Marv101

That's exactly what's been going on here for decades, since developers run this city and have everybody from the Mayor on down in their hip pockets.

Look no farther than the 'massacre' currently going on in Hollywood; folks who have lived there for decades are being forced to move due to rampant overdevelopment which has caused or will cause rents to skyrocket and make the area unaffordable for the folks who've lived there for the past 3-4 decades.

Eh, this is a pretty huge over-generalization. A great deal of my neighbors have been here for decades.

I can't think of any places in the last two years that have been razed to make way for a larger development. Maybe you are talking about in the last 10 years or so, or you consider developing empty / abandoned / blighted lots as over-development. But otherwise I have no idea what you are talking about, unless this an attempt to speak out against the Hollywood Community Plan.

[bophisto]

I'm not sure what inner suburbs would be in L.A ... More density might just make neighborhoods worse. The nicest areas in the city are probably some of the least dense right now.

You can bet that homeowners will fight any density

One advantage to density would be that it would theoretically bring prices down.