Downtown L.A. Is Improving, But Developers Are Driving
With a surge in population and some large-scale retail and entertainment complexes in the works, downtown L.A. is in the midst of a major urban shift. But as this column from the Los Angeles Times argues, developers are shaping the growth.
"People who live in transformed, long-abandoned buildings and trendy new towers are on foot, heading here and there and nowhere in particular."
"And I think it's generally a good sign that there are now more dogs than humans urinating on downtown sidewalks."
"I like much of what I see. And with all this commerce and more to come, the potential benefits to the rest of the city (from shared tax revenue) and to the whole region (from new attractions around Staples Center and on Grand Avenue) are huge."
"In typical L.A. fashion, mega-developments and the redrawing of the skyline are underway with little in the way of long-term vision or planning. It's the same old let's-try-this-and-see-what-happens approach, with developers in the driver's seat."
"Although public officials and the media spun last week's downtown zoning changes as a boon for desperately needed affordable housing, there is in fact no requirement that a single such unit be built -- there are merely incentives that developers may or may not choose to take advantage of."
- Login or register to post comments
- Email this page
Related News Stories
How to Make San Francisco More Sustainable - Oct 25, 2008
Homeless at the Mall - Oct 24, 2008
'Housing That Works' Plan Announced - Oct 16, 2008
What's In A Neighborhood's Name? - Jul 09, 2008
San FranYuppyland? - Jun 23, 2008
Straight from the horse's mouth
Quote from the article:
"It wouldn't take much imagination to convert dozens of downtown alleys into al fresco hangouts, but according to downtown developer Tom Gilmore, there's a reason only a few such places exist. 'The bureaucratic lead time to pedestrianize the alleys is a day shy of infinity,' Gilmore said, adding that the city could easily streamline the hurdles."
It's basic economics. Developers are focused entirely on return. Even if there's something that would make their particular project more competitive (such as outdoor dining, or a pocket park), if the cost in money/time/headache they have to put in doesn't contribute to their return, they won't do it. You can hear it straight from the horse's mouth above, the permitting process is too much of a headache to make it worthwhile to add those type of amenities.
For those ideologically disinclined to developers who might argue that streamlining the permit process wouldn't really get any more of these types of amenities built as the added cost would cut into profit margins and therefore we should just require it as a condition to grant a building permit, Three thoughts: 1) requiring pocket parks or an in-lieu contribution will raise the cost of the finished product as it will be passed onto homebuyers (which you may not care about). 2) By making it a requirement you're guaranteeing mediocrity as the cost will now definitely hurt the developer from a return perspective and as everyobody in now doing it there's no premium to the amenity, so they'll have little incentive to do a bang up job as there's now no to little return. And 3) You have to think like a developer to get this and remember that it's all about return for these guys. By streamlining the process and lowering the cost, the developer now has an incentive to spend a littlee bit more money upfront for an amenity that will make his project more attractive than the next one. A more attractive project commands a premium price and gains a higher return. It also adds the incentive to do a good job as a the nicer the amenity, the higher the return (to a point) as the developer will want to out compete surrouding projects.
Now, it wouldn't work for all projects nor for all developers (especially the bottom-feeder types), but at least some of these types of parks and outdoor dining spaces would get built without passing the entire cost onto those new residents who really don't want to pay for it.
And...
what's new?
The L.A. Times should take a close look at Downtown San Diego to see how developer-driven it is there. The developers practically "own" San Diego...