The Los Angeles City Council gave its unanimous approval Friday to a 725-unit apartment project in Chinatown that had drawn opposition from community members concerned about housing affordability in the neighborhood.
Set to rise on a vacant lot across from the Chinatown Gold Line station, the College Station project would hold shops, including a supermarket, and entirely market-rate units in a neighborhood where residents are largely low-income.
Opponents argued that, if built, College Station’s presence would attract wealthier tenants to the neighborhood and lead to higher rents for existing Chinatown residents.
When the city planning commission considered the project, it recommended approval on the condition that the complex include 5 percent affordable units, roughly 37 of the 725 planned apartments.
The developer, Atlas Capital, pushed back, arguing that it wasn’t legally required to provide any affordable housing.
When College Station went before the planning and land use committee, Councilmember Gil Cedillo, who represents the area, spoke in favor of approving it as purely market-rate.
“We’ll have housing for an anticipated economic growth, we’ll have increased economic activity, and that activity will be what sustains Chinatown,” Cedillo said. He also noted that his district had already approved over 600 units of supportive housing planned.
The committee greenlit the development as 100 percent market-rate, and Friday the City Council approved the project 14-0 without discussion.
Comments
hot take from an urbanist: this should have had affordable housing units.
By Partymuscles on 03.26.19 11:19am
I think they originally wanted to go taller and were willing to do a fair number of senior housing and affordable units to get there, but that plan got shot down by the neighborhood over concerns that (1) it was too tall and (2) there still weren’t enough affordable units. So I don’t blame them for going 100% market rate if they tried to do the right thing and it got blown up by NIMBYs and housing activists who didn’t want to take yes for an answer.
Because of LA’s inclusionary housing ordinance, all new construction will need affordable units, so this will likely be the last major development without them.
By Greyvagabond on 03.26.19 12:01pm
Ok, I didn’t know the history here, but zero units is just galling and the developer falling back on not being legally required set me off. I’m all for upzoning but developers have to play ball.
By Partymuscles on 03.26.19 12:16pm
Exactly what @Greyvagabond said. The original plans for 2- 20 story towers could have included some affordable housing units. The developer offered to PAY the cost of Rent Increases for 100 nearby senior low income apartments for the next 10-years. Which would have helped the current residents a lot.
Unfortunately, the neighborhood NIMBY’s wanted their cake and eat it with a glass of champagne too. They vehemently opposed any type of high rise density that would block their precious view of the Men’s Central Jail, Union Station Rail Yard, or the California Steel Forgery smokestacks. And by "They" I do not mean the local working class Asian or Latino community. The most vocal NIMBY opposition came from the White hipster self proclaimed "starving artists" who live in nearby $3,000 a month industrial lofts. Most of them believe that because they "settled" in Chinatown for the past 10 to 20 years, they are entitled to dictate how an immigrant neighborhood that has been around for over 160 years should look like. And their vision is to replace the historically densely populated Chinatown district with loft apartments, art colonies, and studios just for "artists" like them.
By Whitman Lam on 03.26.19 1:16pm
Yep. The anti-development NIMBYs who claim to care about affordability tanked that possibility with their opposition to a larger project that would have included those units as a trade-off. Really gives the game away, and it’s astonishing pro-tenant groups like LA Tenants Union are now partnering directly with AHF and other NIMBY groups. Utterly self-defeating.
By disqusted on 03.26.19 1:04pm
So, what does that mean studios from $5000 a month?
By mrjim1 on 03.26.19 12:54pm
You’re joking right?
By MartyinLA on 03.26.19 1:16pm
Am I?
By mrjim1 on 03.26.19 2:31pm
New construction with nice benefits in Chinatown? Maybe $1,750 for studios, $2,200 for 1 bedrooms.
By Greyvagabond on 03.26.19 1:26pm
About right actually :O
By KlunkerRider on 03.27.19 10:40am
Yeah, but use of the communal barbecue on the roof is included.
By enter ranting on 03.29.19 12:52pm
I work down here and its a great location for dense development. Its right next to a huge park, the Gold Line station, the Union Station transit hub, and lots of amenities. Not sure what neighbors held this project back as there aren’t residential units near it.
By MartyinLA on 03.26.19 1:16pm
I agree, it’s a great place for more housing and infill development, as there is nobody living on that property right now and it’s very convenient to public transit, walking, and bicycling. I do believe that most of the "neighbors" who were up in arms attacking this project, were mostly from neighborhoods further away like Silver Lake, Echo Park, and Highland Park. There was not much in the way of local opposition from residents in the immediate vicinity, and most Chinatown shop owners and senior citizens were in favor of the project, but they did not have nearly the loud voices and grassroots support that the NIMBY groups did.
By Whitman Lam on 03.26.19 4:21pm
Can you elaborate on why you think the people opposing the project were not from the neighborhood?
By CaliSon on 03.26.19 4:39pm
The demographics of the neighborhood are predominantly older couples, retired or on a fixed income, Asian and Latino immigrants who don’t speak English as a primary language or 2nd generation who can help them translate. The opposition crowd did not seem to fit in with the neighborhood, and whenever they got up to speak, they seem to preach more about general "Social Justice" issues like homelessness, wealth inequality, gentrification, displacement, rather than issues specific to Chinatown such as a lack of grocery shopping, access to healthcare, trash on sidewalks, public parking, disappearing cultural identity, empty storefronts, etc.
By Whitman Lam on 03.26.19 4:53pm
LA and California in general need more housing. Even at market rate these are a great addition, getting some 1000+ people a place to live.
By Intractable on 03.26.19 1:42pm
The design, or lack of design for this project is abysmal. Painted hip and happening colors it is reminiscent of the housing projects in Manhattan but without the housing benefits to the community. It looks like 5 story white railroad cars parked on a RR siding. The Councilmember does not appear to be in tune with his community. A giant blemish on the landscape with no real sense of community.
By lanatik on 03.26.19 6:47pm
I’ve always found Johnson Fain’s work to be pretty thoughtful and well done. I like the tumbled blocks that are responding to the curves of the site. But then again, I also like One Santa Fe for its brutal longness.
And regarding Cedillo, I live in this district and am grateful that he supported this project.
By CaliSon on 03.27.19 10:06am
Thoughtful? The design is stale and repetitive. I believe we have considerably different standards.
By lanatik on 03.28.19 12:39pm
I am so glad this got approved. I hope the new residents enjoy the location.
By Kermit Kardashian on 03.26.19 8:13pm
This is an actual fruitful discussion on Curbed? Are they moderating the comments now or something?
By freenachos on 03.26.19 9:59pm
So…725 units to help relieve pressure on our housing market.
We’ll take it.
By MMVic on 03.27.19 6:55am
I’m just glad this isn’t another hideous Geoffery Palmer ninja-turtle apartment complex.
By KlunkerRider on 03.27.19 10:41am
Looks pretty value-engineered. And no BMR units? WTF?!? Doesn’t LA have inclusionary housing laws?
I’ll bet there’s a shitload of parking, even though it’s across the street from a transit hub. And you wonder why traffic is so bad in LA…
By keenplanner on 03.27.19 1:41pm
No one is entitled to a cheap (read: below market) apartment in LA, or anywhere for that matter.
By dash3456 on 03.27.19 2:29pm