The debate about the availability of housing in Los Angeles and the city's development policies has been testy but long overdue. Fueling public outrage over growth policies that would significantly increase density are well-grounded fears that, in the clash between overdevelopment and neighborhood preservation, the developers will prevail.
Urged on by some elected officials, city planners have decided that the "smart" and "elegant" way to grow the city's housing stock is to double the allowable size of new buildings, bust through established height limits and reduce parking-space requirements -- effectively rolling back more than two decades of neighborhood-protection laws.
There is nothing smart or elegant about such growth. On the contrary. It's development run amok and with an utter disregard for how it affects the livability of the city's neighborhoods. Should these efforts -- the city's version of a state law encouraging greater density; ad hoc zoning changes to double the size of residential development on commercial property to facilitate more density; widespread approval of zoning variances for parking, height and property-line setbacks -- succeed, they will irreparably harm some of our most cherished neighborhoods and diminish our traditional sense of place.
As residents of Los Angeles, we need answers to some fundamental questions:
* Does the city need to weaken its zoning laws to build housing?
Absolutely not. As of 2005, the city had nearly 1.4 million apartment, condominium, single-family and other residential units. Under the general plan that was readopted by the City Council in 2001, that number could increase by nearly 60%, to 2.4 million units. Existing zoning law has accommodated considerable housing growth in recent years, allowing more than 76,000 new units between 2001 and 2007. Before zoning is changed to give the real estate industry special concessions on height, density, parking and building size, developers should exhaust their substantial underutilized capacity for growth.
* Can more housing be built without destroying neighborhoods?
Absolutely. Housing development should be encouraged on the thousands of properties throughout the city that have sufficient lot size and depth relative to surrounding neighborhoods. Such properties can accommodate well-designed, denser and even taller buildings without the collateral damage of traffic congestion, loss of privacy and other community effects often associated with such development. In some cases, these projects would even enhance commercial thoroughfares -- such as the Figueroa corridor near USC -- that are in desperate need of revitalization. At short, larger housing projects should be built where they fit.
