Results for “paul r. williams”

@Buildings R Us:

That is great from a theoretical standpoint. We should build TOD that is fairly dense with limited parking around transit stations. No argument from me on that.

I am more talking about why that doesn’t happen now, which is because a lot of state and local policies actually work against development. There is no denying that. Everyone is asking why this isn’t a 20 story affordable housing beauty. Your answer is in comment #34.

@Buildings R Us: FWIW, MacArthur Park is already one of the most densely populated urban neighborhoods in the entire metro area (http://maps.latimes.com/neighborhoods/population/density/neighborhood/list/) And all of that with no skyscrapers.

Just curious, do you live in a high rise near mass transit? Correct me if I’m wrong, but it sounds to me from your other comments that you live in the suburbs of SGV, work in the SFV, and pretty much drive everywhere. Maybe you should just move to Downtown or K-Town and get involved with neighborhood politics if tall buildings are that important to you.

@Buildings R Us: My point is that tall buildings are not necessary for density. If they didn’t pencil out for the developers here than why does it matter (beyond aesthetics and personal taste?)

The area’s already quite dense (about 38k ppsm; that’s more than the London borough of Hackney, to put it in perspective.) I’m much more concerned about the pedestrian experience. The area could benefit from much more traffic calming, as well as productive growth incentives that empower the community (instead of just pricing everyone out via re-tenanting, since the area is mostly renters and primed for gentrification.)

My issue with the parking is that, as far as I can tell, the zoning still requires it, even on top of the subway. I just checked, and it looks like the Westlake Community Plan was updated in 1997, after the subway was built. That’s just dumb, IMHO (especially in a neighborhood that already has high transit ridership to begin with.)

And again, as I understand it, the zoning does allow for high rises throughout the Wilshire corridor… but the market demand just doesn’t exist for building them in this neighborhood yet (perhaps in a decade or two, who knows?) What else can be done short of the government building vertical housing projects on the taxpayer’s dime?

And sorry if it seems like I was trying to attack you on your lifestyle, not my intention. Me personally, I care about making the region more livable, walkable and productive through conventional urban growth. If we can do that, I think all the other problems we have (income inequality, education, unemployment, homelessness, etc.) will be much easier to address.

I used to complain about my neighborhood all the time when I lived in Silver Lake (crappy/overpriced housing, boutique economy, unsafe/unpleasant streets for walking/cycling, etc.) but addressing those issues at the NC meetings seemed like a waste of time. They just seemed to me to be a toothless organization where those who speak the loudest control the agenda.

Now I live in a diverse neighborhood in Pasadena with light rail, more useful amenities to walk to, safer designed streets, and an easier commute downtown, where some of my clients and friends live/work. I guess you could say I voted with my wallet. It’s far from perfect (still overpriced)… but I dig it.

I just think you seem super passionate about urban living, so maybe you should buy a condo downtown or something… it’s hella expensive, and not without problems. But the area’s changing fast.

And yeah, I should do more – we all should, civic engagement in LA county is pitiful.

I like the mountains in Pasadena.

Naming rights should definently come more as a lease thing than a purchase thing. Bakersfield took named brick donations to pay for a courtyard at their convention center. Now the courtyard bricks are old, damaged and chipped (as building materials are wont to do after a few decades) so they wanted to pull them up and put down some different pavers. Of course, those who bought legacy bricks are furious so now they City has to spend twice as much, because they have to move and restore the bricks as well as pay for the new court yard. You can also get multiple names on the same venue as the decades go by and you need more upkeep money: Wheeler Stadium at Permenter Field

@pmw1: Totally agree with you. I was with a friend driving through there at night last Saturday and it was like being in Tijuana.

@denizen: Who said anything about the neighborhood having to supporting a glass and steel tower? Please don’t be part of the problem. If more units would allow housing across all income groups and provide mass transit access to hundreds of more people, then we should build it!

And that’s the problem with LA….

For the longest time rich Westside residents who HAVE steel and glass towers held back mass transit access while low-income Westlake residents who HAVE mass transit access would probably throw a NIMBY tantrum should Metro propose a much taller tower.

We lack a regional plan and this low-density Metro vision is an LA FAIL…

@Buildings R Us:
It is not the neighborhood itself that needs to support a glass, steel and concrete high rise, but the market economics of the neighborhood. You gotta understand basic economics from a development standpoint.

Why would a developer spend a ton of money to build an expensive high rise here and then get back very little in rent? Do you expect people to work for $1 an hour at Whole Foods so you can get high end groceries cheap? Same concept.

I agree that Nimby’s are a problem in some instances such as the buildings discussed yesterday in Chinatown, which I would like to see built. However, that is a different situation from this.

Frogtown is such a lame name. Sounds like a neighborhood in rural Texas.

@Buildings R Us: I agree. I also think these people need to realize that there simply is no more land available for a growing population and that the only option is to grow ‘up’. The old suburban design, that of limitless sprawl, is long gone. Los Angeles is at a crossroads, where we either embrace the need to build taller, or become a has-been city.