Land value tax. See Georgism. It’s a good idea but you also need to remove the restriction on building. Those mansions near Wilshire would pay a ton in tax but could be converted into six floor walk ups with 12 units, sold, or just pay the tax associated with the fact that they choose not to do that. Single family zoning is a subsidy to the single family home owner.
we could list 100 more -the san pedro marina -downtown san pedro (is wrapping up on a series of projects and will be redeveloping the old projects there) -the navy fuel point that they're thinking about closing -about 40 acres of land in the south and east of del amo mall -the whole south bay galleria that they're trying to redo -lots of land north of the now-dense carson/avalon intersection, also trying to be developed -many sites along carson between the 110 and avalon -the multiple square miles of refineries throughout the south bay and into long beach -a lot of the hawthorne corridor -much of the land around the water treatment plant in carson -the spot they tried to build allegiant stadium in -so so so much land around there (i'm telling you carson could hold like 300,000 people) -a lot of the carson mall -sepulveda the east-west south bay street's corridor -all the closed oil wells in signal hill -the parking lots in downtown long beach -the long beach convention center area and the enormous shoreline drive -the never-finished 110/47 interchange -so much empty land in compton/west rancho dominguez -most of the beach cities' waterfront should look like miami -torrance airport's business park -the weird convoluted rail junction by the douglas c line station care for me to continue?
I can speak on the reason Compton is empty. To many broken down RV’s and homeless people stealing utilities and causing fires. The city of Compton has tax break after tax break for any business in the city. But the crime is still costing the businesses more. I actually think if any of you reading this has the time. Just spend 10 minutes listening to the business owners grievances (because the city never does) and you’ll find out why some places are abandoned or just a big parking lot.
LA RE investor here - some of these places aren’t redeveloped bc they’re cheap. We lack affordable housing & high redev costs have to be recouped in any project (resulting in luxury units / high rent spaces) Developers instead buy up SFHs to do it on a smaller scale. Good example of this happening rn is Inglewood.
I am from the San Fernando Valley, the big lot next to the westfield topanga mall has been tried time and time again to be developed, there used to be a chemical propulsion contractor for NASA there, and thus, the land is polluted. It is probably the hardest land in LA to develop
i love sitting at my computer desk eating youtube videos while eating fully loaded fries and i get info on how LA is literally wasting space!!! great work!
The biggest need in the area is a grocery store, and other commercial aimed at the local community. There are many old apartments without laundry, for instance, and the nearest laundromat is over a mile away across one of the freeways.
@@clarkeeclarkGod forbid the developers leave room in the apartments for utilities. But no. Got to squeeze out as many apartment units as possible to maximize revenue.
I understand his reasoning though: SFH should be the thing you raise kids in, then sell off and move out of. It requires too much of a cultural shift to rely on that becoming the norm though.
penthouse apartments are multi millions for 2 bedrooms. Thats nowhere to raise more than 1 kid. Now maybe if we still built 3+ Bedroom apartments more families would live in the city.
There’s nothing innately wrong with single family homes, but then that’s all that can be built, and comprises a vast majority of our landscape, yeah that’s a problem. As for another comment, I disagree. You can raise kids in multi family housing, it just sucks that more missing middle isn’t built. You either have to choose to raise your child in an apartment or detached home.
My point is that there are plenty of other areas that should come first for redevelopment before you start bulldozing nice neighborhoods. Enough room and potential to house hundreds of thousands of people. Singling out these desirable neighborhoods and streets when there are tons of other options is pure ideology and not logic.
@@alexanderrotmensz I get it, but those people fight against low income housing anywhere near them, and often nowhere near them as well. You can open up zoning, but if the voters are against the individual projects, it doesn't matter what type of housing they intend to provide.
LA needs Barcelona style super blocks. 🫴 Pedestrian/ bike only corridors people can use to navigate the city. We spend billions on the highways but we can't create elevated paths and observations decks, multi level cities. The issue is many cities have billionaire owners who profit from allowing their properties dilapidate. The Pritzker family, the Moroun, now turning a profit in the subsidized re development.
I think the VA development idea u had would be great for housing our homeless and on the verge of homeless vets to live there. I think the hardest part of these redevelopment projects that get pushback from people is lack of trust in the institutions and those behind it. We need to earn back the trust of people to see a more hopeful future and mass support behind us
@@alexanderrotmensz in order to build trust we need to build our own movement to renovate the institution under our rules. This takes all of us and talk about how we all can contribute, we have build the right things that makes us drop our tribalism and build a better future. The government isn’t gonna do so we have to. LA can become paradise again.
i spent a week in manhattan recent for my first time in new york and it was surprising to see just how many surface parking lots there were and just generally how efficient land usage wasn't being prioritised even in what is some of the densest and most desirable real estate in the whole world
I live in Woodland Hills, adjacent to Warner Center. I’ve seen the changes over the last 30 years. Sometimes categorized as the “Manhattanisation” of Woodland Hills. But there is much more to do and I would love all these empty spaces filled with mixed use buildings. More restaurants and shopping choices for us.
On a much smaller scale, the amount of unnecessary hospital parking on the Vermont corridor chops up east Hollywood, silverlake, and Los feliz, otherwise maybe the best urbanist area of the city. Living there, I’ve never seen any of these structures even 20% full and there’s a BUNCH. Right by a redline station and several key bus routes. Not to mention the egregious parking setback on the barnsdale strip mall.
Absolutely, minimum parking requirements causes this all over the place. The places where it makes sense to build plenty of parking, the law is useless because the developers were going to build it anyway. In places that don't need as much parking, or there are alternatives and the opportunity costs are higher, the law is extremely wasteful, restrictive to growth, and environmentally terrible.
Wiltshire reminds me of the Arlington-Rosslyn corridor outside of DC. It's got a lot of metro stations spaced close by and high rises for a few blocks around most of them but then it quickly scales down into dense yet expensive single family housing. Of course the comparisons aren't one-to-one: Wiltshire will have fewer metro stops for the corridor and it's not close to downtown LA like Rosslyn is to DC. But the point is, single family homes aren't the worst thing. It's just that they shouldn't be the only thing. LA has reached the max extent of sprawl and is learning lessons that other cities in the sunbelt, for example, will have to learn too. Converting less-dense uses like strip malls and office parks to mixed use is a great way to densify because (1) fewer owners to buy from than a SFH neighborhood in order to develop efficiently, (2) these locations are already destinations usually served by wider roads that can handle increased traffic with density and hopefully bus or rail transit.
A judge has recently ordered the VA to build thousands of housing units for Veterans on the VA land you mentioned, and quickly. Temporary housing should go up within months and more permanent structures within a year or two.
Panorama City needs to build more housing, they have been on going weither anything will be built in a close Montgomery Ward site. thankfully thanks to the future light rail that will go thru Van Nuys. The area is going through a massive redevelopment and only time will tell. Just like Warner Center. it can become the East sides dense area along with Van Nuys.
As a veteran I can only say that your caveat about stealing the VA space is completely inadequate. Housing should be built, but for the many homeless vets that need access to VA services. Many vets need that tranquil space for their PTSD. I’m one who did okay after my service and have retired to a comfortable life in my trailer park. But not all vets are so lucky. You can thank your privileged ability to even make this video to the many vets who served.
I can agree 100% with that suggestion. My main thing is that so much of the land is surface parking and wasted space as of now. If it can all be utilized in a way that serves vets, that's the most important thing. As of now, it's too empty.
Oh no.... Seeing my area near SoFi stadium really makes me seethe with rage at the lack of public transport AND THE horrid business parks all around and to the south of it!!!! IT'S SO AWFUL IT'S SO AWFUL IT'S SO AWFUL IT'S SO AWFUL
I heard, when LA was designing its roads...the Oil/Gas and Auto companies put pressure on LA to not have good public transit - So it forced everyone to buy a car and gasoline.
chinatown could be great. i hate park la brea. crenshaw blvd between the 10 and wilshire is basically a freeway with stoplights. im impressed by much many tall residential buildings marina del rey has and yet is so unwelcoming to pedestrians. thats a really good point that the 90 could totally just be a road and not a freeway. i think people who were against the removal of that freeway were thinking that the path itself would disappear. yeah, business parks are dumb landuse.
I thought at first your point about Parklabrea was a bit redundant (Im not from LA but just interested in urban design). I thought at first, it just needs better commercial opportunities, and some more pedestrian walkways. Then i realised it is a private/gated community. Now i understand your issues, but i think the first step of this community is opening it up. Also, i feel that you seem to be very interested in a one-size-fits-all urbanism. Granted, its a more walkable and sustainable place, but the consistent designs of "efficient space" without high rises (10:50), courtyards and walkable neighbourhoods. Surely you understand high rises are actually efficient at taking up space. And we need to remember that multi-family flats are also important too. Building only for couples or singles or even students can mean cramped conditions for burgeoning families in urban areas.
Wilshire/Vermont has 2 lines with more stops on Wilshire b4 the Olympics what would u do the area to take full average of more housing around the area being prime real estate for generation 🤔❤️
You COMPLETELY missed the point about Wyvernwood. - East LA is a vibrant neighborhood already and DOESN'T need the type of investment you are calling for. What it needs is for the current residents is more opportunity for economic stability/progress instead of being pushed out by Gentrification. Putting Wyvernwood on the National Registry would help ensure current residents affordable housing and a secure neighborhood to grow families. At 2:53 you show an empty lot next to a mini-mall, for people who are unfamiliar with the neighborhood this looks like a ghetto, but it really isn't. Whittier Blvd is full of SMALL, family owned businesses that actually LIVE in the area. I think you need to spend some time in that area and get a better understanding. Chinatown, the area just east AKA Mission Junction is INDUSTRIAL and we have zoning laws that are designed to separate residential from these areas so people can live a healthy life. West LA land is guaranteed for VETERAN housing only. This goes back to the original gift of the land to the Federal government. So any use has to be for VETERANS and their families only. That lot of land is so big there is enough space to house every current homeless vet there and have space left over. The Federal gov. can not gift any portion of the land away.
"Chinatown, the area just east AKA Mission Junction is INDUSTRIAL and we have zoning laws that are designed to separate residential from these areas so people can live a healthy life." While I do agree that some zoning of polluting industrial activities should be limited, industrial and commercial are not always those stereotypically polluting industries we think about - factories with smoke stacks. Many of what we consider industrial uses are perfectly livable. Its the polluting and noise that needs to be addressed. Definitely you would agree that plenty of commercial uses are not harmful to people living near them like shops, restaurants, bars, clubs (I can understand noise regulation), yoga studios etc. So zoning things for commercial only is an absolutely a waste of land and airspace.
"East LA is a vibrant neighborhood already and DOESN'T need the type of investment you are calling for." That is a value judgement. Private individual investors decided what kinds of opportunities they would like to invest in. I suspect that if regulations were lifted, there definitely would be more investment. Its simply the government that is suppressing it (and yes by will of the residents). Imagine if you were trying to be a doctor, and all the doctors protest every medical school that is trying. That would cause a doctor shortage. Guess what, that is actually what happened as the AMA and other Physician orgs do limit the number of doctors through a myriad of ways. This is what the residents are doing, they are protesting a development that will benefit a lot of people (who don't live there yet) because they know that when the place is better, the rents will go up, and eventually they will be displaced. As bad as that is, the answer is actually more development. Right now, its so difficult to get development, so expensive and time consuming that when it comes, its almost always exclusively high end apartments and condos. But if you allow more development, eventually that market will be saturated, and developers will go down the value chain and more build affordable housing. Thats how markets work - the first cars, computers, etc were only for the rich, as suppliers chased profits and competed, then they became cheap enough for everyone.
Spot on as usual. People and developers tend to focus on the already successful areas and suggest overdevelopment that will the destroy the qualities that make these areas attractive. One should instead focus on the less great areas and make them good instead.
Allowing more student housing and businesses around Westwood would only make it MORE livable for thousands of people. There needs to be development literally everywhere in LA. No neighborhood can be exempt from change. In fact, that's the problem. Every neighborhood thinks they are special and exempt from change.
@@mariusfacktor3597 yep. And more foot traffic would ensure that the businesses do well enough that they won't miss the business from motorists passing through.
Nothing wrong with having ***some*** SFH, but it's the beginning of the video and we're defending large swaths of SFH neighborhoods in a video like this......this is going to be interesting.
If there's already medium density, might as well utilize to its fullest potential, which is true walkability, mixed use, and cultural vibrancy. It's a magical thing that can only really happen within a medium density environment, and so our medium density areas should get onto that level first and foremost before we look towards SFH.
@@alexanderrotmensz it's less economically feasible, as more units need to be purchased, this kind of cherrypicking is very slow, you can rezone entire blocks of single family housing into medium/high density mixed use, particularly those with alleys. Your approach will displace many and the larger costs mean newer units can only be luxury
I agree with your general point that low-density uses in a city in the midst of a deep housing crisis is irresponsible, but I feel like there may not have been a complete understanding of *why* Westwood and the Wilshire Corridor represent LA's greatest policy failure. It's actually half the argument you give against the tweet in this video: The City spends way too much time, money, and resources protecting single family homes. Imagine the density the neighborhood could have if this wasn't the case AND it was planned with intention. Instead, places we deem "pretty" and "useful" get to stay, while places that are "ugly" are ripe for redevelopment, a parttern of planning that literally dates back to the period of urban renewal. The reason Wyvernwood resisted that development is that the neighborhood correctly assumed there wasn't going to be a place for them in the new development. They would lose their homes, be forced to move, lose the support systems that make life as low-income person possible, and for what? Apartments they can't afford? Stores that don't cater to them? The residents who endured decades of disinvestment won't get to enjoy the benefits this development brings them. And for what? So that rich people in Westwood get to have their single family home? I feel like this is what makes the idea that we should be preserving SFHs so inequitable and toxic. It's a repetetion of past planning mistakes. Again, I agree that this city could utilize its space in ways infinitely better than we do now. I even agree with many, many of the ways you suggested we change places for the better. I think your ideas for some of LA's neighborhoods are good! But I also think reality shows that, time after time, rapid development in marginalized neighborhoods comes at the expense of poorer people, often minorities, for the benefit of richer, often white people. People who, because of our policies, are afforded unfair privileges that many angelenos will never get to see.
The problem in Los Angeles isn't the efficiency of land use, it's the politicians who run it and the people who live there. No amount of social engineering can change human nature.
Great video with interesting and thoughtful ideas. However, I found the AI renderings to be very tacky - instead of using AI generated images created by models trained largely on stolen photos and art from real people, can you use actual photos of real places that illustrate your points about urbanism? E.g., throw some photos from dense mixed-use streets in Barcelona. That would be much more instructive AND not rely on shitty (and arguably unethical) AI image models.
You decry NIMBYism, but you fail to see how the lack of affordability guarantees puts low income residents at odds with new developments. Affordable housing is the housing they tear down to build "affordable" housing. What member of the working poor is gonna vote for that? I lived in SoCal for 21 years, and it's always the same: they don't build housing fast enough not because they can't, but because waiting to open new units guarantees higher rents. I know, I built a bunch of it myself. The housing crisis is solely an affordability crisis, and it is completely manufactured by the developers and apartment owners themselves.
73% of the residential area in LA bans anything except large single-family houses, and it's been that way for 60 years. THAT is why there is a housing shortage. The "luxury housing" in LA is indisputably the single family houses. Owners voluntarily selling their $2 million house to build apartments (which is one of cheapest housing types besides maybe mobile homes) is not "tearing down affordable housing".
@@mariusfacktor3597 everything you just wrote is demonstrably false. In areas where zoning changes have been made, nothing has changed. The problem is that banks don't want to finance low income housing, therefore it relies on grants and other free money, which is limited. Also, NIMBYs don't want it in THEIR neighborhoods, see Dave Chappelle's fight against it in his neighborhood near Antioch, Ohio, where he's not even from.
@@taxirob2248 Look up "Behind the LA zoning commission recommendation to leave 72% of city zoned for single-family homes" by LAIST. I'm tired of people saying I'm making stuff up just because I provide the data that they don't know about and refuse to look up. Private developers in Los Angeles with zero grant money are building apartment buildings where 100% of the units are permanently below market-rate. Those are due to ED1 which used to be allowed on all the residential land in LA but got nerfed to just the multifamily zoned areas.
@@taxirob2248 I'm tired of people saying I'm being dishonest when I bring actual facts into the conversation. 73% of LA's residential land is zoned for single-family houses only. That's a fact. Private developers are making buildings where 100% of the units are permanently rented for below market-rate with no grants involved, due to ED1. ED1 used to apply to all the residential land in LA but it got nerfed to only allow it on existing multifamily areas.
@@mariusfacktor3597 market rate is nuts, so if you're doing 80% it's still nuts. And if they can charge up to 120% for a limited number of units, they will. So, nothing guarantees that any given development will be 100% below HUD rate units, if I'm reading it correctly. Also, I don't see any clauses that establish a time limit on how long it must remain below market after opening. What would the city do, come in and chain the doors if they try and rent at higher prices 4 or 5 years from now?
You clearly want to render LA uninhabitable due to frozen transportation. "Useless 90 freeway", Venice Beach i is a top 3 tourist destination for people coming to California next to the Golden Gate Bridge in Disneyland. Getting rid of the 90 freeway makes it even more difficult to get to now let alone Park. And what's the point of living in a giant city that has all these amazing things and diversity if you live in a five block walking area?
![Twenty One Pilots - The Line (from Arcane Season 2) [Official Audio]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/XCz7WUotXs8/mqdefault.jpg)
empty lots in cities should be taxed the fuck out the longer they are left abandoned or as useless parking lots.
also property tax should be based on land size not property value.
@@ahmedzakikhan7639 you're right, because "value" is way too subjective and tax assessors can be easily influenced by developers.
Land value tax. See Georgism. It’s a good idea but you also need to remove the restriction on building. Those mansions near Wilshire would pay a ton in tax but could be converted into six floor walk ups with 12 units, sold, or just pay the tax associated with the fact that they choose not to do that. Single family zoning is a subsidy to the single family home owner.
Also, the value of land is already calculated for each property every year and listed on your property tax bill.
@@PerpetualAbidance but the tax is assessed not just on the land itself, but the whole package: land AND structure, if any.
we could list 100 more
-the san pedro marina
-downtown san pedro (is wrapping up on a series of projects and will be redeveloping the old projects there)
-the navy fuel point that they're thinking about closing
-about 40 acres of land in the south and east of del amo mall
-the whole south bay galleria that they're trying to redo
-lots of land north of the now-dense carson/avalon intersection, also trying to be developed
-many sites along carson between the 110 and avalon
-the multiple square miles of refineries throughout the south bay and into long beach
-a lot of the hawthorne corridor
-much of the land around the water treatment plant in carson
-the spot they tried to build allegiant stadium in
-so so so much land around there (i'm telling you carson could hold like 300,000 people)
-a lot of the carson mall
-sepulveda the east-west south bay street's corridor
-all the closed oil wells in signal hill
-the parking lots in downtown long beach
-the long beach convention center area and the enormous shoreline drive
-the never-finished 110/47 interchange
-so much empty land in compton/west rancho dominguez
-most of the beach cities' waterfront should look like miami
-torrance airport's business park
-the weird convoluted rail junction by the douglas c line station
care for me to continue?
This list is actually so valid. So much work to be done here in the South Bay.
I can speak on the reason Compton is empty.
To many broken down RV’s and homeless people stealing utilities and causing fires.
The city of Compton has tax break after tax break for any business in the city. But the crime is still costing the businesses more.
I actually think if any of you reading this has the time. Just spend 10 minutes listening to the business owners grievances (because the city never does) and you’ll find out why some places are abandoned or just a big parking lot.
I noticed this video skipped southeast LA and the gateway cities
LA RE investor here - some of these places aren’t redeveloped bc they’re cheap. We lack affordable housing & high redev costs have to be recouped in any project (resulting in luxury units / high rent spaces)
Developers instead buy up SFHs to do it on a smaller scale. Good example of this happening rn is Inglewood.
I am from the San Fernando Valley, the big lot next to the westfield topanga mall has been tried time and time again to be developed, there used to be a chemical propulsion contractor for NASA there, and thus, the land is polluted. It is probably the hardest land in LA to develop
i love sitting at my computer desk eating youtube videos while eating fully loaded fries and i get info on how LA is literally wasting space!!! great work!
The good news is that many of the lots of Chinatown that you highlighted are slated for the development of new apartments.
The biggest need in the area is a grocery store, and other commercial aimed at the local community. There are many old apartments without laundry, for instance, and the nearest laundromat is over a mile away across one of the freeways.
@@clarkeeclarkGod forbid the developers leave room in the apartments for utilities.
But no. Got to squeeze out as many apartment units as possible to maximize revenue.
Bro really in defense of SFH when rich people can also live in penthouse apartments 😂
I understand his reasoning though: SFH should be the thing you raise kids in, then sell off and move out of. It requires too much of a cultural shift to rely on that becoming the norm though.
penthouse apartments are multi millions for 2 bedrooms. Thats nowhere to raise more than 1 kid. Now maybe if we still built 3+ Bedroom apartments more families would live in the city.
There’s nothing innately wrong with single family homes, but then that’s all that can be built, and comprises a vast majority of our landscape, yeah that’s a problem.
As for another comment, I disagree. You can raise kids in multi family housing, it just sucks that more missing middle isn’t built. You either have to choose to raise your child in an apartment or detached home.
My point is that there are plenty of other areas that should come first for redevelopment before you start bulldozing nice neighborhoods. Enough room and potential to house hundreds of thousands of people.
Singling out these desirable neighborhoods and streets when there are tons of other options is pure ideology and not logic.
@@alexanderrotmensz I get it, but those people fight against low income housing anywhere near them, and often nowhere near them as well. You can open up zoning, but if the voters are against the individual projects, it doesn't matter what type of housing they intend to provide.
LA needs Barcelona style super blocks. 🫴 Pedestrian/ bike only corridors people can use to navigate the city. We spend billions on the highways but we can't create elevated paths and observations decks, multi level cities. The issue is many cities have billionaire owners who profit from allowing their properties dilapidate. The Pritzker family, the Moroun, now turning a profit in the subsidized re development.
I think the VA development idea u had would be great for housing our homeless and on the verge of homeless vets to live there. I think the hardest part of these redevelopment projects that get pushback from people is lack of trust in the institutions and those behind it. We need to earn back the trust of people to see a more hopeful future and mass support behind us
Every part of this I agree
@@alexanderrotmensz in order to build trust we need to build our own movement to renovate the institution under our rules. This takes all of us and talk about how we all can contribute, we have build the right things that makes us drop our tribalism and build a better future. The government isn’t gonna do so we have to. LA can become paradise again.
I'd love to see a video like this, but with NYC.
i spent a week in manhattan recent for my first time in new york and it was surprising to see just how many surface parking lots there were and just generally how efficient land usage wasn't being prioritised even in what is some of the densest and most desirable real estate in the whole world
Great video. Try to do some more cities. I’m always thinking like this.
i've never been to la, but this analysis seems extremely solid. *respect.*
Love those renderings! where did you find them?
the ai crap?
I live in Woodland Hills, adjacent to Warner Center. I’ve seen the changes over the last 30 years. Sometimes categorized as the “Manhattanisation” of Woodland Hills. But there is much more to do and I would love all these empty spaces filled with mixed use buildings. More restaurants and shopping choices for us.
Don't forget that the Santa Monica Airport will soon become a park! One of LA's largest, in fact.
On a much smaller scale, the amount of unnecessary hospital parking on the Vermont corridor chops up east Hollywood, silverlake, and Los feliz, otherwise maybe the best urbanist area of the city. Living there, I’ve never seen any of these structures even 20% full and there’s a BUNCH. Right by a redline station and several key bus routes. Not to mention the egregious parking setback on the barnsdale strip mall.
Absolutely, minimum parking requirements causes this all over the place. The places where it makes sense to build plenty of parking, the law is useless because the developers were going to build it anyway. In places that don't need as much parking, or there are alternatives and the opportunity costs are higher, the law is extremely wasteful, restrictive to growth, and environmentally terrible.
Do this but San Francisco PLEASE
Wiltshire reminds me of the Arlington-Rosslyn corridor outside of DC. It's got a lot of metro stations spaced close by and high rises for a few blocks around most of them but then it quickly scales down into dense yet expensive single family housing. Of course the comparisons aren't one-to-one: Wiltshire will have fewer metro stops for the corridor and it's not close to downtown LA like Rosslyn is to DC. But the point is, single family homes aren't the worst thing. It's just that they shouldn't be the only thing.
LA has reached the max extent of sprawl and is learning lessons that other cities in the sunbelt, for example, will have to learn too. Converting less-dense uses like strip malls and office parks to mixed use is a great way to densify because (1) fewer owners to buy from than a SFH neighborhood in order to develop efficiently, (2) these locations are already destinations usually served by wider roads that can handle increased traffic with density and hopefully bus or rail transit.
A judge has recently ordered the VA to build thousands of housing units for Veterans on the VA land you mentioned, and quickly. Temporary housing should go up within months and more permanent structures within a year or two.
Panorama City needs to build more housing, they have been on going weither anything will be built in a close Montgomery Ward site. thankfully thanks to the future light rail that will go thru Van Nuys.
The area is going through a massive redevelopment and only time will tell. Just like Warner Center. it can become the East sides dense area along with Van Nuys.
Wow friend.. DOPE 👍🏼
Great video!
As a veteran I can only say that your caveat about stealing the VA space is completely inadequate. Housing should be built, but for the many homeless vets that need access to VA services. Many vets need that tranquil space for their PTSD. I’m one who did okay after my service and have retired to a comfortable life in my trailer park. But not all vets are so lucky. You can thank your privileged ability to even make this video to the many vets who served.
I can agree 100% with that suggestion. My main thing is that so much of the land is surface parking and wasted space as of now. If it can all be utilized in a way that serves vets, that's the most important thing. As of now, it's too empty.
Westlake by Lafeatte Park close 2 Wilshire/Vermont metro. 4 example Kurve & in Jan the LA County Superior Court building is turning into apts
Please do more places, and especially NJ
Oh no.... Seeing my area near SoFi stadium really makes me seethe with rage at the lack of public transport AND THE horrid business parks all around and to the south of it!!!! IT'S SO AWFUL IT'S SO AWFUL IT'S SO AWFUL IT'S SO AWFUL
I heard, when LA was designing its roads...the Oil/Gas and Auto companies put pressure on LA to not have good public transit - So it forced everyone to buy a car and gasoline.
Worse, General motors had our streetcar system dismantled which was the largest in the world at the time.
Who else noticed Wildwood?
chinatown could be great.
i hate park la brea.
crenshaw blvd between the 10 and wilshire is basically a freeway with stoplights.
im impressed by much many tall residential buildings marina del rey has and yet is so unwelcoming to pedestrians.
thats a really good point that the 90 could totally just be a road and not a freeway. i think people who were against the removal of that freeway were thinking that the path itself would disappear.
yeah, business parks are dumb landuse.
I thought at first your point about Parklabrea was a bit redundant (Im not from LA but just interested in urban design). I thought at first, it just needs better commercial opportunities, and some more pedestrian walkways.
Then i realised it is a private/gated community. Now i understand your issues, but i think the first step of this community is opening it up.
Also, i feel that you seem to be very interested in a one-size-fits-all urbanism. Granted, its a more walkable and sustainable place, but the consistent designs of "efficient space" without high rises (10:50), courtyards and walkable neighbourhoods. Surely you understand high rises are actually efficient at taking up space. And we need to remember that multi-family flats are also important too. Building only for couples or singles or even students can mean cramped conditions for burgeoning families in urban areas.
Wilshire/Vermont has 2 lines with more stops on Wilshire b4 the Olympics what would u do the area to take full average of more housing around the area being prime real estate for generation 🤔❤️
You COMPLETELY missed the point about Wyvernwood. - East LA is a vibrant neighborhood already and DOESN'T need the type of investment you are calling for. What it needs is for the current residents is more opportunity for economic stability/progress instead of being pushed out by Gentrification. Putting Wyvernwood on the National Registry would help ensure current residents affordable housing and a secure neighborhood to grow families. At 2:53 you show an empty lot next to a mini-mall, for people who are unfamiliar with the neighborhood this looks like a ghetto, but it really isn't. Whittier Blvd is full of SMALL, family owned businesses that actually LIVE in the area. I think you need to spend some time in that area and get a better understanding.
Chinatown, the area just east AKA Mission Junction is INDUSTRIAL and we have zoning laws that are designed to separate residential from these areas so people can live a healthy life.
West LA land is guaranteed for VETERAN housing only. This goes back to the original gift of the land to the Federal government. So any use has to be for VETERANS and their families only. That lot of land is so big there is enough space to house every current homeless vet there and have space left over. The Federal gov. can not gift any portion of the land away.
"Chinatown, the area just east AKA Mission Junction is INDUSTRIAL and we have zoning laws that are designed to separate residential from these areas so people can live a healthy life." While I do agree that some zoning of polluting industrial activities should be limited, industrial and commercial are not always those stereotypically polluting industries we think about - factories with smoke stacks. Many of what we consider industrial uses are perfectly livable. Its the polluting and noise that needs to be addressed.
Definitely you would agree that plenty of commercial uses are not harmful to people living near them like shops, restaurants, bars, clubs (I can understand noise regulation), yoga studios etc. So zoning things for commercial only is an absolutely a waste of land and airspace.
"East LA is a vibrant neighborhood already and DOESN'T need the type of investment you are calling for."
That is a value judgement. Private individual investors decided what kinds of opportunities they would like to invest in. I suspect that if regulations were lifted, there definitely would be more investment. Its simply the government that is suppressing it (and yes by will of the residents).
Imagine if you were trying to be a doctor, and all the doctors protest every medical school that is trying. That would cause a doctor shortage. Guess what, that is actually what happened as the AMA and other Physician orgs do limit the number of doctors through a myriad of ways.
This is what the residents are doing, they are protesting a development that will benefit a lot of people (who don't live there yet) because they know that when the place is better, the rents will go up, and eventually they will be displaced.
As bad as that is, the answer is actually more development. Right now, its so difficult to get development, so expensive and time consuming that when it comes, its almost always exclusively high end apartments and condos. But if you allow more development, eventually that market will be saturated, and developers will go down the value chain and more build affordable housing.
Thats how markets work - the first cars, computers, etc were only for the rich, as suppliers chased profits and competed, then they became cheap enough for everyone.
East LA is great but definitely needs more housing. Idk how you can argue that any part of LA couldn’t benefit from more units.
Spot on as usual. People and developers tend to focus on the already successful areas and suggest overdevelopment that will the destroy the qualities that make these areas attractive. One should instead focus on the less great areas and make them good instead.
Allowing more student housing and businesses around Westwood would only make it MORE livable for thousands of people. There needs to be development literally everywhere in LA. No neighborhood can be exempt from change. In fact, that's the problem. Every neighborhood thinks they are special and exempt from change.
@@mariusfacktor3597 yep. And more foot traffic would ensure that the businesses do well enough that they won't miss the business from motorists passing through.
@@taxirob2248 Businesses gain exactly $0 from motorists passing through.
Why not make some of it farmland?
It makes me so sad to see how LA could have been developed like this. I hope your proposed projects will be adopted!
The valley needs an entertainment venue
Also check out the area immediately south of Union Station in DTLA all parking lots and utility lots. Such a waste
You wnat to fix housing in LA and make it cheaper. Throw out AIR BNB.
Have you ever played Cities Skylines? If not you should definetely check it out because i think you'll like it.
Nothing wrong with having ***some*** SFH, but it's the beginning of the video and we're defending large swaths of SFH neighborhoods in a video like this......this is going to be interesting.
weird that you avoided any single family housing rezoning but you had no issue with redeveloping medium density?
If there's already medium density, might as well utilize to its fullest potential, which is true walkability, mixed use, and cultural vibrancy. It's a magical thing that can only really happen within a medium density environment, and so our medium density areas should get onto that level first and foremost before we look towards SFH.
@@alexanderrotmensz it's less economically feasible, as more units need to be purchased, this kind of cherrypicking is very slow, you can rezone entire blocks of single family housing into medium/high density mixed use, particularly those with alleys. Your approach will displace many and the larger costs mean newer units can only be luxury
You also need to check out the land owners of the property too.
I agree with your general point that low-density uses in a city in the midst of a deep housing crisis is irresponsible, but I feel like there may not have been a complete understanding of *why* Westwood and the Wilshire Corridor represent LA's greatest policy failure. It's actually half the argument you give against the tweet in this video: The City spends way too much time, money, and resources protecting single family homes. Imagine the density the neighborhood could have if this wasn't the case AND it was planned with intention. Instead, places we deem "pretty" and "useful" get to stay, while places that are "ugly" are ripe for redevelopment, a parttern of planning that literally dates back to the period of urban renewal.
The reason Wyvernwood resisted that development is that the neighborhood correctly assumed there wasn't going to be a place for them in the new development. They would lose their homes, be forced to move, lose the support systems that make life as low-income person possible, and for what? Apartments they can't afford? Stores that don't cater to them? The residents who endured decades of disinvestment won't get to enjoy the benefits this development brings them. And for what? So that rich people in Westwood get to have their single family home? I feel like this is what makes the idea that we should be preserving SFHs so inequitable and toxic. It's a repetetion of past planning mistakes.
Again, I agree that this city could utilize its space in ways infinitely better than we do now. I even agree with many, many of the ways you suggested we change places for the better. I think your ideas for some of LA's neighborhoods are good! But I also think reality shows that, time after time, rapid development in marginalized neighborhoods comes at the expense of poorer people, often minorities, for the benefit of richer, often white people. People who, because of our policies, are afforded unfair privileges that many angelenos will never get to see.
The problem in Los Angeles isn't the efficiency of land use, it's the politicians who run it and the people who live there. No amount of social engineering can change human nature.
It is the inefficiency in the land use and the zoning rules that govern development.
If only they didn’t build wrong to begin with
"lozanjeliz"
Great video with interesting and thoughtful ideas. However, I found the AI renderings to be very tacky - instead of using AI generated images created by models trained largely on stolen photos and art from real people, can you use actual photos of real places that illustrate your points about urbanism? E.g., throw some photos from dense mixed-use streets in Barcelona. That would be much more instructive AND not rely on shitty (and arguably unethical) AI image models.
You decry NIMBYism, but you fail to see how the lack of affordability guarantees puts low income residents at odds with new developments. Affordable housing is the housing they tear down to build "affordable" housing. What member of the working poor is gonna vote for that?
I lived in SoCal for 21 years, and it's always the same: they don't build housing fast enough not because they can't, but because waiting to open new units guarantees higher rents. I know, I built a bunch of it myself. The housing crisis is solely an affordability crisis, and it is completely manufactured by the developers and apartment owners themselves.
73% of the residential area in LA bans anything except large single-family houses, and it's been that way for 60 years. THAT is why there is a housing shortage. The "luxury housing" in LA is indisputably the single family houses. Owners voluntarily selling their $2 million house to build apartments (which is one of cheapest housing types besides maybe mobile homes) is not "tearing down affordable housing".
@@mariusfacktor3597 everything you just wrote is demonstrably false. In areas where zoning changes have been made, nothing has changed. The problem is that banks don't want to finance low income housing, therefore it relies on grants and other free money, which is limited.
Also, NIMBYs don't want it in THEIR neighborhoods, see Dave Chappelle's fight against it in his neighborhood near Antioch, Ohio, where he's not even from.
@@taxirob2248 Look up "Behind the LA zoning commission recommendation to leave 72% of city zoned for single-family homes" by LAIST.
I'm tired of people saying I'm making stuff up just because I provide the data that they don't know about and refuse to look up. Private developers in Los Angeles with zero grant money are building apartment buildings where 100% of the units are permanently below market-rate. Those are due to ED1 which used to be allowed on all the residential land in LA but got nerfed to just the multifamily zoned areas.
@@taxirob2248 I'm tired of people saying I'm being dishonest when I bring actual facts into the conversation. 73% of LA's residential land is zoned for single-family houses only. That's a fact.
Private developers are making buildings where 100% of the units are permanently rented for below market-rate with no grants involved, due to ED1. ED1 used to apply to all the residential land in LA but it got nerfed to only allow it on existing multifamily areas.
@@mariusfacktor3597 market rate is nuts, so if you're doing 80% it's still nuts. And if they can charge up to 120% for a limited number of units, they will. So, nothing guarantees that any given development will be 100% below HUD rate units, if I'm reading it correctly.
Also, I don't see any clauses that establish a time limit on how long it must remain below market after opening. What would the city do, come in and chain the doors if they try and rent at higher prices 4 or 5 years from now?
You clearly want to render LA uninhabitable due to frozen transportation. "Useless 90 freeway", Venice Beach i is a top 3 tourist destination for people coming to California next to the Golden Gate Bridge in Disneyland. Getting rid of the 90 freeway makes it even more difficult to get to now let alone Park. And what's the point of living in a giant city that has all these amazing things and diversity if you live in a five block walking area?
LA doesn't have any of its own water, a major problem.