Cutting Houses Down to Size

0

You don’t have to look hard in Los Angeles to see examples of the city’s longstanding lack of planning. Retail buildings often nestle against single-family homes. Individual office buildings sometimes tower over their neighbors, as if Kobe Bryant were in a lineup with kindergartners.


A similar dissonance can be found in residential areas, where, say, a row of 1940s bungalows will be interrupted by a big new cube of a house, which looks kind of like someone dropped a Kleenex box on a Monopoly board.

Since some believe this trend of so-called mansionization has picked up momentum and is getting out of hand, the Los Angeles City

Council’s Planning Commission last week gave preliminary approval to the first citywide ordinance that would rein it in. Some believe the measure does not go far enough in that it will still allow oversized homes to be built on small lots.

Others believe it goes too far and invades property rights.

I’m a believer in property rights, but this argument I don’t buy. Property typically comes with restrictions that the community sets and enforces. Most communities will prevent you from creating a farm on a suburban lot, for example.

What’s more, mansionized homes can rough up the value of surrounding properties. Suddenly discovering that your back patio feels like a prison yard can’t be good for your resale price.

At first blush, the ordinance seems reasonable. It does not apply in the hills or the coastal areas, where mansionization is less disruptive and generally makes more sense. The proposed formulas still allow for some sizable homes to be built. And if the ordinance is passed, communities could form districts to create more or less stringent mansionization rules, so there is an element of neighborhood control.

The goal of keeping neighborhoods reasonably homogenous is a good one. It not only looks more elegant, but it sends the signal that orderliness is important here.

Now on a different track, and somewhat coincidentally, the city’s Planning Department and the Community Redevelopment Agency have come up with a directive for industrial land in the city. At first blush, it seems to veer too far the other way. It is detailed and restrictive.

The policy calls for retaining most of the industrial land near downtown for industrial uses, preventing its conversion to lofts, condos and the like. As a result, the directive already has hit resistance from condo developers, since in some areas there is less demand for the land as industrial space than there is for loft space. (See the article on page 1.)

Gail Goldberg, who came to Los Angeles nearly two years ago as planning director, said she has been most surprised at the lack of planning in the city over the years. It’s true; the city has developed in an unplanned, haphazard way. She’s to be commended for trying to impose some sense of direction and order to the city’s development.

But at the same time, it is reasonable to listen to the market. And the market is saying that more of downtown wants to make the transition from industrial to residential and live/work loft space.


Charles Crumpley is editor of the Business Journal. He can be reached at

[email protected]

.

No posts to display