DOWNTOWN LOS ANGELES: News and Updates

[latennisguy]

Originally Posted by funhaus

Interesting article in tonight's LA Times...

L.A. considers building apartments as small as 250 square feet.
Critics say this isn't New York.
By Sharon Bernstein
Times Staff Writer

10:07 PM PDT, July 23, 2007

Is Los Angeles ready for the 250-square-foot apartment?

That's what city planning officials have in mind with a series of
sweeping new zoning proposals that would allow developers to build
smaller condos and apartments than ever before.

The tiny units — studios that officials hope will be as small as 250
square feet — are part of a package of proposed zoning changes aimed
at significantly increasing density in downtown L.A. The rules would
apply to the roughly five miles around downtown but could eventually
be extended elsewhere in the city.

The idea is to encourage developers to continue to build high-rises
downtown even as the market appears poised to slow down — while also
spurring them to build units that are more affordable. Supporters —
who include the city's top planning officials, some developers and
Councilwoman Jan Perry, whose district includes downtown — say the
rules will encourage the construction of housing at a time when the
city desperately needs it.

"This is a landmark event," said Dan Rosenfeld, a principal in the
development firm Urban Partners, which is behind several downtown
projects. "The people who care about downtown L.A. have been waiting
for these ordinances for a long time."

But the proposal — slated to come before the City Council next week —
is already drawing criticism from those who see it as another
effort to boost development in a region that is already in a high-
rise building boom stretching from downtown through Koreatown and
into Century City, Westwood and Marina del Rey.

Some land-use experts question whether there is much of a market for
tiny apartments in downtown L.A., which, despite its recent
resurgence, still lacks the cachet of Manhattan, central London or
Paris. Others fear overcrowding and slum conditions if the market
goes sour and the units are too densely packed.

"I see it as creating a neighborhood where parking is horrendous and
families are squeezing themselves into these units which are very
small because they are affordable," said Noreen McClendon, a
developer of affordable housing. "It's just a tenement."

The tiny apartment is a fairly new concept in Southern California,
which has a long history of suburban sprawl and larger spaces.

But in New York, Boston, San Francisco and many European and Asian
cities, residents have squeezed into tiny apartments for decades,
usually because the lure of the downtown area is so great — and the
prices for larger places so high.

Gretchen Broussard, who co-owns Tiny Living, a Manhattan store that
sells furnishings for small spaces, lived in a 200-square-foot
apartment in that New York borough until five years ago.

"I couldn't even turn around in the space," Broussard said. "I maxed
out every inch of the wall space, mounted everything to get it off
the floor.... Every New Yorker is continually purging stuff because
they don't have room."

In San Francisco, Martin Eng rents a 300-square-foot studio in the
swanky Nob Hill neighborhood, across from the Ritz-Carlton hotel.
Though Eng has several other homes around the state, the apartment
is his primary residence — and he said it's livable only because it
has a good view and plenty of light.

With a rent-controlled cost of $400 a month — below the market rate —
the studio is a convenient city crash pad for Eng, 53, who works in
investment.

"Mine is a tiny place, not somewhere you would want to entertain or
bring people," Eng said. "It's like a poor man penthouse — you can't
really be proud of it."

Although the new L.A. ordinance does not directly address the size
of the apartments that could be built, it would remove all
restrictions on the number of units that developers could put in a
single building, a move that planners hope will result in residences
as small as 250 square feet — about the size of a hotel room or a
modest living room.

The ordinance would also let developers willing to reserve some
apartments for low- and moderate-income families to make their
buildings 35% bigger than zoning rules normally allow and to opt out
of providing half the open space typically required. Those who build
units for those with very low incomes would not have to offer
parking spaces for those residences.

Perry said the proposed rules would concentrate new housing downtown
while preserving single-family homes elsewhere.

The smallest units, Perry said, might be attractive to young
professionals who want to buy a condo but can't afford anything
larger, or to service workers who couldn't otherwise afford to buy
or rent near their downtown jobs.

Burbank architect Mark Gangi, who also teaches at USC, said the
rules could help mold downtown into a lively metropolitan center.

The new apartments might be used by those who need an affordable
place to live, he said, but they might also become pieds-à-terre for
professionals and others who want a modest place where they can stay
overnight if they are working or seeing a show or ballgame.

But others are more skeptical about how tiny units would fare in Los
Angeles.

Raphael Bostic, associate director of the Lusk Center for Real
Estate at USC, said developers might take advantage of the city's
offer to let them build affordable units without parking spaces,
because the cost of such parking can be prohibitive. "Only the most
adventurous would do the very small units," he said.

Jeff Lee, a developer active in the downtown area, said he was
doubtful there'd be a market for 250-square-foot apartments or
condos. "That wouldn't be much more than a bathroom and 10-by-10
bedroom," said Lee, who built the Market Lofts downtown.

Jane Blumenfeld, L.A.'s principal city planner, said that in cities
like New York and San Francisco, people live happily in tiny
apartments and condominiums.

But Joel Kotkin, an urban affairs expert, questioned whether such
units would help the city's goal of creating a feeling of community
downtown.

"You're creating tiny spaces that people live in for short periods
of time," Kotkin said.

L.A.'s downtown is still not desirable enough to entice well-heeled
purchasers to buy or rent a studio when they can live in a larger
place elsewhere, Kotkin said.

"They say that in New York and San Francisco people live [in small
apartments] a long time. Well, downtown L.A., you're not New York
and you're not San Francisco."

This is one of the most interesting articles i've read in a while and everyone else is bickering with bricky. lol

I currently live in a 450 sq. ft. condo in Houston and it's plenty of space for me...Jeff Lee says that a 10x10 room and a bathroom is 250 sq. feet, it's NOT...it's more like 150 sq. ft. I don't like guys who exagerate like this. (although not by much ) I totally think this will help people who don't make 100,000k a year be able purchase real estate in downtown L.A. I'm sure i'm not the only one that will agree to never ever rent and will only purchase. I also like the fact that parking will NOT be required.

[fridayinla]

The Yogurberry website shows that a location is "coming soon" to downtown LA: http://www.yogurberry.com/locations.html

I wonder where the location is planned? My first thougth was Little Tokyo, but how many yogurt chains can that little neighorhood hold?

[LosAngelesBeauty]

^ I talked to Yogurtpia on SaMo Blvd. in Weho a few weeks ago about expanding into Downtown LA (probably near The Edison I told them). They seemed very interested after I told them that The Edison is one of the most hip lounges/bars in the United States.

[RAlossi]

No more yogurt in Little Tokyo! Jeez...

But Pinkberry isn't open yet, and I thought the Piccomolo stuff tasted like crap (well, like wax). CeFiore is good but not tart enough.

Listen to me, I've been swallowed up by the yogurt beast!

[LosAngelesBeauty]

^ My favorite is Yogurtpia in Weho (across from Rage). I actually like how its more sweet and not TOO tart!

[citywatch]

Originally Posted by RAlossi

But Pinkberry isn't open yet,

What's that all about?! That space has been sitting in a state of seeming final preparation, almost ready to open, for wks & wks. Did the owner (is Pinkberry a franchise?) decide to take an extended trip to Guam, the south Pole or something?

[LosAngelesBeauty]

^ The same story applies to the Pinkberrys in Old Town Pasadena and Century City Shopping Center. Both places have had the Pinkberry "Coming Soon" for awhile now.

[dragonsky]

Downtown booms, Civic Center fizzles
As a state building is razed, stalled plans for a courthouse there symbolize the stagnation in the area around City Hall.
By Cara Mia DiMassa, Times Staff Writer
July 28, 2007



The building has been reduced almost to rubble now. But for years, the former Junipero Serra state office building sat vacant and moribund at 1st and Broadway, a symbol of the more derelict aspects of downtown.

The once-bustling building was abandoned a decade ago, amid fears that it was seismically unsound, and had become a favorite destination for squatters, taking on the ripe stench of urine and garbage.

But for the last few months the 369,000-square-foot structure has been hidden behind a heavy green shroud, as workers have systematically demolished it floor-by-floor.

The property, slated to become a federal courthouse, is within a hub of construction activity downtown. To the west, the $2-billion Grand Avenue project will break ground this year. To the east, the new Los Angeles Police Department headquarters are taking shape on an old Caltrans site.

But unlike those projects, which seem to be on a fast track to completion, the courthouse has become for civic planners a bit of a cautionary tale about need colliding with fiscal realities.

It also underscores the fact that while downtown is in the midst of a development surge, the Civic Center remains a work in progress.

The area has been the focus of a spate of civic plans over the last few decades, most of which failed to materialize in any real way. Even now, government officials seem unsure about what to do with the patchwork quilt of buildings that surround City Hall.

In some quarters, officials have discussed elaborate land swaps among the different municipalities, so that, for example, future buildings can be located closer to their civic brethren. (The site of the planned federal courthouse, for example, is blocks away from two other federal courthouses. And the police headquarters will be separated from other LAPD buildings in the city center.)

In addition, Los Angeles County officials have been considering what to do with their Hall of Administration and Stanley Mosk Courthouse, which have seismic and asbestos problems. The design process for the 16-acre park that is part of the Grand Avenue project includes scenarios in which those buildings would be razed, their footprints integrated into the park and some of the offices moved to an office tower in the final phase of the project.

Robert Harris, professor emeritus of architecture at USC, said care needs to be placed on the design of the new Civic Center buildings.

He worries about the bunker quality of more recent government buildings. Designed in an era of terrorism fear, most have one entrance, few ground-level amenities and little truly public space.

"A part of what's missing is a really wonderful urban space — so that as one comes to that center, one feels the quality, the dignity, the accessibility for government services," he said, "so that it's not just a convenience but symbolically democratic."

Thus a lot is riding on the proposed court building.

Originally, plans called for the largest federal courthouse in the nation — "a shining example of sustainable design innovation" that would blend "environmentally progressive public spaces with traditional symbols of American courthouse design," according to the website of the project's architect, Perkins and Will.

Between 2000 and 2005, the federal government allocated about $399 million for construction of the 1.3-million-square-foot structure on land it bought from the state.

But with downtown booming, construction costs skyrocketing and an expensive war being fought overseas, the federal government has found that it can't afford to start construction. And so, although demolition continues, it's going to be a while before construction cranes arrive.

Gene Gibson, a spokeswoman for the U.S. General Services Administration, said the courthouse's construction budget is under review, "since market projections for construction are causing concern on the adequacy of the budget."

Neither Gibson nor representatives of Perkins and Will would comment on how the design of the courthouse would change, given the fiscal realities. One source familiar with the process said officials would eliminate an entire floor and possibly an interior atrium.

But design changes will take the courthouse project only so far. Officials will probably have to go back to Congress for further allocations to complete the process. Gibson said the GSA is now looking at 2009 for awarding the construction contract. Until then, the site will most likely sit vacant.

There are several reasons why the Civic Center finds itself at a crossroads.

Councilwoman Jan Perry, who represents most of downtown, sees the broad spread of government office buildings across downtown as partly a function of a time when there was surplus office space in the area. Under those circumstances, government agencies leased space outside the Civic Center.

Size matters in terms of how fast a government entity can get a project going, Perry said. The city and LAPD, she said, because they are relatively smaller, can be "more reactive and move quicker" than the federal or county governments.

The public-private Grand Avenue project of cultural, retail, residential and business use — whose preliminary civic-park designs are expected to be unveiled later this year — could change that. Planners, who include noted architects and urbanists Brenda Levin and Mark Rios, have been assessing how to best build a park stretching from the Music Center to City Hall, with features for a wide range of Angelenos.

Harris, the architecture professor, said more rides on that than any other downtown civic process.

"To reorganize where everybody goes is a 50-year project," he said. "But making beautiful open space is already underway…. We can move forward."

[LosAngelesBeauty]

^ Get rid of the LA Mall and replace it with a large, mixed-use project including high-density housing. Give that area some gravity so the Civic Center can actually eventually be connected to El Pueblo/Union Station.

[sopas ej]

The Pinkberry in Old Pasadena finally opened on Mon. July 30. Now I don't have to go all the way to Larchmont or Los Feliz for my Pinkberry.

[BrandonJXN]

LA's obession with yogurt.

Goodness. Lol.

[LosAngelesBeauty]

^ Oh good! I was gonna take my friend from out of town (NJ/NYC) to the Huntington Library and then Old Town after, so I guess we'll stop by the Pinkberry then.

[colemonkee]

What a Pinkberry opening in Pasadena has to do with "DOWNTOWN LOS ANGELES: News and Updates" is beyond me.

[sopas ej]

I guess it's called going off on a tangent... and besides, doesn't look like there's been any new news about DTLA since last week, anyway.

[LongBeachUrbanist]

Here's the latest hit piece from LAWeekly.com. My comments follow.

A Zillion New Neighbors

Scared by a weakening downtown, City Hall is set to obliterate zoning protections
By STEVEN LEIGH MORRIS
Wednesday, August 1, 2007 - 8:00 pm

AT THE JULY 25 MEETING of the Downtown Los Angeles Neighborhood Council in the tony Bunker Hill Towers, David Robinson, a slender man in a tidy but unprepossessing shirt and slacks, sat patiently through the presentations. If you didn’t know he was from Strategic Actions for a Just Economy, you’d have pegged him as a public defender, which is sort of what he is, being an advocate for affordable housing.

Robinson listened to pitches by restaurants and liquor stores, which wanted the neighborhood council to support their petitions to sell liquor that could be carried off-site. Council vice president Brady Westwater practically begged one presenter to encourage the restaurant she represented to stay open later.

Board members of the neighborhood council were generous in their support of these businesses — anything that might contribute to a downtown nightlife. Then came the item Robinson was waiting for, the Greater Downtown Housing Ordinance — slated to be voted on by the Los Angeles City Council on August 7 and widely expected to be approved.

The so-called Downtown Ordinance is one in a trio of zoning changes drafted by the Planning Department that could eventually transform what the entire city looks like architecturally, who will be able to live here and in what conditions.

It’s part of the high-density sea change being pushed for the entire region — a vision city planners have been working on based on a reported population influx, but largely without public discussion or awareness.

Though the Downtown Ordinance’s chief architect, Senior City Planner Jane Blumenthal, presented an early draft of the ordinance two years ago before this same downtown neighborhood council, few officers from other affected neighborhood councils knew anything concrete about it.

In reference to an earlier agenda item, Westwater complained about the city’s “lack of transparency.” There needs to be more clarity, he argued, “so the public can figure out whether or not this is a good idea.”

Neighborhood council president J. Russell Brown countered, “Brady, 60 percent of the public doesn’t even know who the vice president is” — an unwitting defense of the quiet decisions that Los Angeles County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky described to the Weekly as “the failure of the neighborhood councils — now populated with business interests — to represent their constituents.”

In referring to the proposed new density ordinance for downtown, the neighborhood council’s land-use co-chair, Shiraz Tangri, remarked, “With very little fanfare, this is making it to City Council next week.”

“Out of nowhere,” Westwater quipped.

WITH THE DOWNTOWN ORDINANCE, the City Council is about to lift zoning restrictions on developers in a five-mile area framed by the 110 and 101 freeways and Alameda Street and Martin Luther King Boulevard, allowing them to carve up residential structures into potentially tiny, closetlike condos and apartments — whatever configurations permitted in the building code that developers think the market can bear.

But the city’s housing market has produced widespread unaffordability — for all but a fraction of the city’s residents, and this is what so vexed Robinson, who was there to argue against the ordinance.

“You keep saying we have a housing crisis,” Robinson said, tension rising in his voice. “We don’t have a housing crisis. We have an affordable-housing crisis, and people operating under this system are not creating affordable housing.”

Cecilia V. Estolano, newly appointed by Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa to head the Community Redevelopment Agency, admitted to the Weekly that, compared to other large cities, with its current orgy of development and redevelopment, L.A. is “way behind the curve” when it comes to creating affordable housing.

The Downtown Ordinance’s relaxed restrictions provide a fat “density bonus” — meaning that in exchange for setting aside 15 percent of units for low-income “affordable housing,” developers receive an entitlement to build 35 percent more apartments or condos on the same lot.

When this was brought up at the meeting, Robinson scoffed, “Cecilia at CRA took one look at this and laughed — it’s a joke.”

(When contacted by the Weekly, Estolano said that with the rising costs of construction for high-rise residential buildings, it’s unlikely that developers would use the 35 percent bonus. She suggested that the terms of a different pro-density ordinance recently approved by the City Council would prove more attractive to developers. Called the Transfer of Floor Area Ratio ordinance, it allows downtown developers to transfer air rights.)

The downtown ordinance’s relaxed restrictions would also allow developers to extend residential buildings all the way out to the sidewalk (like the baroque structures that were built between the late ’20s and ’30s along Spring Street and Broadway), tossing out the green space “setbacks” that have been a citywide requirement in the zoning code for decades. In addition, the new ordinance would allow tiny apartments L.A. has never before seen — as small as the building codes allow, with floor space as scant as 250 square feet, slightly larger than a walk-in closet.

The ordinance’s proponents, such as City Councilwoman Jan Perry, who represents much of downtown, argue that this new downtown will finally offer affordable living options for retirees, students and downtown service workers. Yet there’s no guarantee that these units would even be built or, if they were, that they would be affordable to a shelf stocker working at the new downtown Ralphs supermarket.

Some experts see this all as a formula for more of the same downtown blight that city officials have been trying to eradicate.

“The problem is, if transportation issues aren’t dealt with and we face increased congestion, then we are going to have tenement areas,” with the new ordinance, says Anastasia Loukaitou-Sideris, chair of UCLA’s Department of Urban Planning. “A lot hinges on good design. It’s problematic that they’re doing away with setbacks — when you have so much density and no green space.”

“The architectural community needs to stand up,” adds Yaroslavsky. “I know their bread is buttered by these developers, but this is not in the long-term interest of the city. To give a developer everything they want is not only bad policy, it’s unnecessary.”

At the meeting, however, Tangri argued that, “The purpose of these ordinances is to bring a variety of income levels to downtown, and I believe they can be instrumental in doing so.”

Not true, says Yaroslavsky: “They’re building for the affluent. That’s where the money is for the developers, and that’s what the city is encouraging. I do not recommend lifting zoning restrictions carte blanche, the way they’re doing. I believe that everything ought to be done in moderation. .?.?. Is there a single voice in the city today advocating for responsible government? Is there a Marvin Braude, somebody in the Mayor’s Office who could speak up for responsible behavior?”

FROM THE LATE ’70S to the late ’80s, Los Angeles saw the rise of a new skyline, accompanied by a recession and the sight of block after block of vacant, newly built office space. Maybe it should have, but it did not, put to rest the “build it and they will come” theory of economic development. Many corporations didn’t really want to do business in downtown Los Angeles, while others who were there fled.

The spin behind the Downtown Ordinance is that it’s capitalizing on the current boom in that area. But scratch beneath the surface and you’ll have a hard time finding that boom. If this were a football game, the ordinance could be seen as a Hail Mary pass — a welfare program for developers unmatched by any large American city — to keep downtown’s softening real estate market from dying.

But as Yaroslavsky points out, “If there’s going to be a recession, all the handouts in the world won’t lead to the construction of one new building.”

Author and urban-planning expert Joel Kotkin holds the view that downtown is currently not as booming as it appears. Kotkin cites the “nine o’clock rule” — drive through a neighborhood on a weekend evening at 9 p.m., and see how many lights are on.

Jerry Sullivan has done just that. He lives and works downtown, and is editor of a small newspaper called The Los Angeles Garment & Citizen. “I go home every night and walk by the Eastern Columbia at Ninth and Broadway,” Sullivan explains, referring to one of the swankier new housing developments. “We’re told it’s sold out, but when I go home at night, I rarely see more than a few lights on. Maybe they’re sold, but they’re not occupied. I think there’s more of that than folks realize.”

Sullivan says he’s also observed buildings originally advertised as condominiums flip to leases and rentals after several months. “I spoke with an ad agency representing some of these places, and it’s obvious they were struggling.”

However, Councilwoman Jan Perry insists that downtown is on the rise, having seen its population increase by 20 percent to almost 30,000 over the past few years. The Downtown Center Business Improvement District reports that the median household income of downtown residents is now $99,000.

But Sullivan argues that those figures are misleading. “There were 20,000 people here five years ago, and they were all poor. They added about 10,000 people, so the base of the ideal consumer is 10,000. When they cite that $99,000 figure, they’re only talking about a fraction of the total. Yet that’s been the sales pitch.”

Adds Kotkin, “If it’s such a hot market, why do you need zoning changes?”

PERRY ENJOYS IMAGINING the future.

“The purposes of these ordinances is to help us become the downtown that is not the downtown of today,” she told the Weekly.

Perry envisions a goal for 2050 — a future downtown with neighborhoods, each with its own coffee shops and nightlife, and mothers with baby carriages on the sidewalk. She sees retirees settling downtown after they’ve cashed in their Westside condos and want to be closer to a transportation hub where there’s affordable housing — perhaps a tiny apartment for a widower in his 60s, or a student at L.A. Trade Tech, or a family with kids attending one of the three magnet schools planned on downtown’s perimeter.

These will be people who walk because they want to, “because they’re concerned about their health,” and they’ll be supported by a fleet of shuttles and trains carrying them to all corners of the Southland. And yes, it will be crowded, as crowded as Athens, London, New York or any vital city center.

But there appears to be a huge disconnect between the life imagined by city planners and the life actually lived by its residents.

“There’s a small but significant population here that enjoys the urban lifestyle,” Yaroslavsky points out. “But the vast majority of people who came to Los Angeles from cities like New York and Chicago didn’t come to a warm-weather climate to live packed into tiny apartments in transit corridors. That’s what they left behind, looking for something different.”

The transportation systems that support the kind of density seen in those cities are not even on the drawing boards here. As Kotkin notes, it would take the entire federal budget to fund any one of those mass-transit systems in Los Angeles. Kotkin is concerned that the reality of downtown in 2050 will “look more like Mexico City or Tehran” if development isn’t handled more responsibly.

In 2005, Senate Bill 1818 was signed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, requiring cities to offer high-density bonuses in exchange for a very small fraction of affordable housing. A revision the following year decreased the affordable-housing requirements in these high-density giveaways. Now, another largely unknown ordinance is working its way, stealth like, to the City Council.

Watch for it this fall. This one is called the Density Bonus Ordinance. It will affect the entire city and waters down zoning safeguards, wiping out current residential zoning restrictions on developers, including green­space setbacks, height requirements, and covenants for parks and schools.

All across the city, “We’re going to see a demolition derby,” Yaroslavsky warns.

Kotkin cautions that the market simply won’t support the kind of unfettered development being quietly planned.

“There’s a pack mentality over there [at City Hall],” Yaroslavsky adds. “You’re about to see this explode on the scene. There’s a revolution happening, an uprising in every part of the city. People realize that the neighborhood council movement is not doing its job. What happened in the ’70s and ’80s, when people took matters into their own hands, I think you’re going to see a new generation of activists.”

Sandy Kanphantha contributed to this story.

[LongBeachUrbanist]

My takes:

* The writer frames the issues as City Hall and developers versus the little guy. The real intent of the ordinances -- to encourage an alternative to sprawl and bad planning -- is lost.

* The implication, over and over, is that this ordinance is being slipped past the public. No more than any other legislation. People who are interested know about it.

* The writer doesn't appear to understand economics. He seems to think that the ordinances are bad because they will result in more high-priced housing. In fact, the ordinances are good because they will result in more housing, thus increasing supply, and thus slowing the growth of prices for everyone. Supply is the problem...isn't that obvious?

* The article says the ordinance will be "tossing out the green space 'setbacks' that have been a citywide requirement in the zoning code for decades". Anyone that thinks those little Downtown plazas qualify as green space doesn't know what they're talking about.

* BTW, I'm all for real green space, in the form of City-owned parks. But parks cost money...money comes from property taxes...you see where I'm going here?

* The article states: "scratch beneath the surface and you’ll have a hard time finding that boom." Wow, who knew there were so many naive developers out there who know less about economics than this unqualified hack who writes for a free newspaper? I guess the cranes popping up across Downtown are all just an illusion.

* Joel Kotkin is quoted. 'Nuff said.

* "Your-a-slob-sky" brings up the old argument of NYC/Chicago transplants who came here for sun and wide-open skies. So I guess we're designing L.A. for East Coasters now? This version of the California dream is not universally held. Nor is is affordable. Apparently, lots of people here actually like living in a mature urban city.

* Kotkin again. L.A. will “look more like Mexico City or Tehran”. Racist.

[fridayinla]

Kotkin was also the "opposition voice" from the Times article last week. All of his quotes seem narrow-minded and simply out-of-touch. I could go thru the article point by point and make arguments in favor of the zoning changes (which I was going to do), but I'm sick and don't have the mental energy.

The big thing stands out in my mind, however, is how nay-sayers of the zoning change are making these outrageous assumptions by equating 250 sf unit possibilities with slums. First of all, only a "five-mile area framed by the 110 and 101 freeways and Alameda Street and Martin Luther King Boulevard" would be affected by the proposal, essentially ground-zero for LA's densification efforts. Secondly, the zoning changes only allow developers to build smaller units. It doesn’t mean downtown will suddenly become a over-populated heap of cheap, shabby housing. As we all know, the market will dictate whether or not people need those smaller housing options (and they probably will). When you describe a 250 sf space as something just larger than a walk-in closet, you’re describing it as undesirable and lowly. Small does not mean any less quality, and we all know many people in great cities around the world live happily and comfortably in efficient spaces. People who are going to lay down $500 / sf for a 250 sf unit are still paying $125,000 for their home. I’m sure they’ll live in it with pride just like anyone else might. I’m also sure those smaller units will be located in respectable buildings that offer a wide range of unit sizes. Sure those small would-be units are not for families of four, but in the coming years, when downtown sees new chain retails stores popping up, their hourly employees (among others) will need more affordable housing options to live nearby. This to me seems like a very balanced and healthy urban environment. I personally would be embarrassed to say it might turn into Mexico City or Tehran. Do people really think we’re going to see 30 story towers going up with one thousand 250 sf units? Thank goodness for Jan Perry.

[suga]

Numerous people already live in closets within that proposed ordinance area.

[fridayinla]

From Live & Play Downtown LA Blog (Aug 2, 2007):

It was very exciting to see The Tower Theater sign flick back to life -- welcome back!

The Tower Theater in historic core district of downtown LA is being restored. I'll post some pictures this weekend. Last night the power washer was out bringing the treasure back to it's original glory. A few weeks ago some major graffiti was removed from the stained glass windows.

Some friends say that it was purchased by the family that owns the Los Angeles, Palace and State theaters. Sources at the Chapman flats say that retail tenants are being replaced by higher end ones but the new line up has not yet been announced.

Possibly The Tower Theater will be a first run movie theater or house a theater company. Look for some more changes to occur in the next 60 days.

http://www.towertheaterla.com/



Photos by: Live & Play Downtown LA Blog

[DJM19]

its not like people are being forced into 250sq.f. apartments. This is a market, and they do have to sign the papers to rent the place.