Fellow forumers,
I have been following skyscraper page and skyscraper city for a good number of years and now only recently joining each forum and actively participating in dialogue. One thing that I have observed to be a very important issue is that of the planned development of South Park, specifically the subject of residential density. For the most part the contributors of this forum favor high density, which in itself is unusual compared to other neighborhoods of Los Angeles in which NIMBY-ism is most pronounced. Another observation I made concerned the comments of some formers is about the availability of open land (e.g. parking lots) and developable land available in South Park. Comments such as “lots and lots of land available" struck me as odd because when walking and driving around the neighborhood that just seems to be untrue. Therefore, I decided to conduct an unscientific assessment of available land in the South Park region of downtown Los Angeles, as well as available land for development in both the financial district, and old core (e.g. bank district, Broadway, Hill Street, etc.). It should be noted that much of the land in these latter two areas is not zoned for residential use (it is zoned for commercial use), but variances are obviously granted.
SURVEY
I will be the first to admit that my methods of surveying were rather crude; however, after comparing measured values to known acreage I believe that the figures are reasonably accurate with a margin of error of perhaps plus or minus 5%. I also conducted the survey twice using the same method, and got very close to the first survey’s values. Using the aerial views Google Earth along with measuring tools (both straight line and path) I was able to calculate all parking lot square acreage within the boundaries of the 110 Freeway on the West, the Santa Monica Freeway on the south, Main Street on the East, and the 101 freeway as a northern border. My calculations did not include any parking lots in Bunker Hill, Chinatown, Little Tokyo, or the Arts district. The area described in my analysis consists of very large assembled parking acreage, as well as smaller lots which adjoined structures. I tried to avoid including acreage which was part of a business’ employee or customer parking. I also did not include acreage which has been purchased and actively being developed (e.g. actual digging). Thus projects such as Wood Partners 8th and Hope and Onni’s 9th and Olive were not included, but the Metropolis property and Astani’s development on Grand and Olympic were because their plans can change.
Also note that I included acreage which I considered to buildable, that is acreage gained by the demolition of structures for a higher and better use. This inclusion of acreage was completely subjective on my part They properties in question may be obsolete, underutilized, irrelevant to current surrounding uses, or just no longer economically viable. They include many of the single story brick and or concrete structures which serve(d) as factories, warehouses, or commercial use. Those of you who know the area are familiar with the structures that I am talking about, especially those structures which are within the blocks north of the 10 freeway and parallel to Broadway and Main up to the old core. Some of the structures in this area are “total unadulterated crap” and are “ripe for the wrecking ball,” while other structures in South Park are quite charming and my someday make for valuable retail, commercial, or residential uses. For example, I predict that soon those thirteen story “gems” near 11th and Broadway will be converted to housing and or creative office use. The potential for the area is unlimited.
But, suffice it to say, for the moment economics and demand for residential use will determine what survives and what gets built. A good example of this is the Hill and Olympic project. I’m sure Hanover Development wanted its development to span the entire half block from Olympic to 9th Street (if it had it could have added more than a hundred units to the project based upon a density of 197 du/ac). But the cost or availability of the three structures north of their project prevented them from doing so. Thus, the figure provided by my survey of developable land is very raw and tentative. It does not represent what will actually be built.
DATA
Parking lot acreage in area: 101.56 acres
Buildable acreage in area: 166.33 acres
NEW RESIDENTIAL POPULATION
Depending upon the developer and the investment made to increase developable residential density, in South Park and areas of downtown densities have ranged from a low of about 197 du/ac (for example Hanover’s Olympic and Hill), to Wood Partners 8th and Hope (350 du/ac). Thus, given a hypothetical average of 230 dwelling units per acre, the 101 acres of (parking lot) land could translate to 23,230 units, or approximately 39,329 new residents (at 1.65 residents per unit). Considering a full hypothetical build-out of all buildable acreage (161 acres), using the same formula as before, 37,030 units could be built to house 61,099 new residents.
DENSITY
When concerning the issue of density, I am an advocate for higher density. This is especially true for downtown which I consider to be the most logical place in the entire city for high density. Consider the transportation networks that converge in downtown, consider the density of employment, consider the density of commercial and retail functions, and consider the density of cultural and recreational functions. Mind you, all of these functions that are most accessible now will be more so with the future given the new streetcar and regional connector.
In downtown Los Angeles land (especially the most economically desirable) is a finite resource. It is a precious resource which has economic, social, cultural, and historic implications. It cannot be squandered by the land use practices of the past which included low density sprawl perpetrated by indifference, incompetence, or sheer stupidity on the part of Los Angeles planners and or politicians, these attributes which I believe are rife in the city’s current administration. On a gentler note, I truly believe that Garcetti’s influence will change things. However, I can think of so many more reasons for my argument, yet I think with most of you in this forum I am preaching to the choir. On a last note, I’ll paraphrase some forumers who retort to those who desire more density by saying “it doesn’t matter if developments are short or tall what we need are more feet on the ground.” I agree, but “I want the most feet on the ground.”
I encourage everyone in this forum interested in this subject to look at both articles recently posted on the subject of planning, and development. They both give very brief but very valuable insight into the actual functioning of the Los Angeles city planning department.
Go to:
http://cityplanning.lacity.org/complan/central/PDF/ccyplanmap.pdf to view current city planning zoning policy for Downtown Los Angeles. It is ostensibly being updated. Actually this should have been done more than ten years ago during the first residential housing boom.
Also check out,
http://djcoregon.com/news/2012/04/11...e-complicated/
And
http://www.ladowntownnews.com/news/is-do...e5f97ec-eb52-11e2-a694-0019bb2963f4.html
Prev
Linear Mode
