Los Angeles Daily News - August 27,  2007

Density madness

City Hall wants taller buildings, not a better city

 

os Angeles' politicians want to Manhattanize downtown by relaxing rules on tall buildings and allowing super-small living spaces. They're ready to commit billions of dollars to a subway to the sea that won't be operational for decades. And they are gearing up to lift size-restriction limits on new residential buildings citywide, provided that the buildings include some affordable housing.

Hold on a moment.

All this speeding toward densifying L.A. with little preparation and mitigation should have the city's residents worried sick.

This is the growth-at-any-price thinking that got L.A. into trouble in the first place — sprawl without transportation solutions, neighborhoods devoid of open space, profits ahead of people.

If much of the city of 4 million is already congested from dawn to late evening, what will it be like with 5 million people? If there are too few parks, schools and public facilities now, what will it be like then? If there's already too many poor people and not enough good jobs, will a city of high-rises and gridlocked streets afford more people good opportunities in the future?

Good questions, none of which are being answered by City Hall. The powers that be are too Advertisement busy holding hands with the developers, who will no doubt pass on some of their considerable proceeds to feed a political system that has failed the people for too long.

For a glimpse of what this ultra-dense L.A. of tomorrow looks like, one only has to look to the Westside of today, where traffic is so bad it's created a backlash so strong the Valley is no longer the only bastion of NIMBYism.

The city is bound by the state's "density bonus," which had been only allowed on a case-by-case basis previously. This provision allows city planners to approve developments that exceed the usual size for an area and give developers other incentives for including affordable housing such as requiring fewer parking spaces.

City Hall can't stop this provision, but it can put the brakes on this all-out race toward growth. It can do so by putting a general moratorium on new development — any development — until the city comes up with a comprehensive plan that ensures traffic and transportation improvements, that identifies that what makes this city great and unique are its neighborhoods, which should be protected and not razed for the sake of profits.

If the City Council can require that Home Depot mitigate every possible impact of its conversion of a big-box store in Sunland-Tujunga, then the same rules should apply to every project.

A denser city might be the inevitable future for Los Angeles, but it doesn't have to mean a worse city. With the right planning, the city can accommodate growth without destroying itself.

Smart growth is possible, but it takes smart political leadership. And that won't happen unless voters mobilize to fight for the kind of city they want — a livable city where streets are safe and hard-working families prosper.

* * *