Speakers Tell of Changes in Industrial Use
Nancy Carradine
[Flickr]
Besides its distribution business, Ore-Cal also owns the Fisherman's Outlet, a great seafood stand on Central at 5th. Photo by flickr user something.from.nancy.
DOWNTOWN LOS ANGELES —
Not all "industry" is created equal.
That's a fact that seems to get lost in many of the stats brought out by the Planning department to support its Industrial Land Use policy. At Tuesday's Planning and Land Use meeting several speakers took the chance to clarify.
Mark Shinbane, V.P. of Ore-Cal Seafood, told how his company has expanded in recent years from a $100 million business to one that does $200 million per year. In that time the firm has maxed out the space available to it in Downtown's industrial areas. "The streets are way too small Downtown," Shinbane told the committee, noting that his trucks have issues daily with limited space getting in and out of their loading docks.
Shinbane said that his firm is bursting at the seams in its current spot, but that there are no larger parcels Downtown. When, not if, their next expansion comes, the firm will need to look elsewhere for space to grow.
Creating the space for this sort of use is not a matter of simply protecting existing land. The entire grid of streets would need to be overhauled to provide plots the size needed to attract big industrial users. Estela Lopez of the Central City East Association noted that nationally, manufacturing uses typically require 10 acres. The plots of that size that could be assembled in Downtown's industrial district could be counted on one hand, with fingers left over.
But big industry may not be what's interested in Downtown. Kate Bartolo told the committee that the companies she sees looking for space in the industrial district are entrepreneurs looking for a couple thousand square feet of warehouse. Those firms, she said, are perfectly compatible with mixed use and residential uses.
"Our business is no longer industrial," said Kent Smith, head of the Fashion District Business Improvement District. While wholesale employment in his district has doubled, the buyers who come expect to find bars and restaurants walkable from their shopping. Those are the sort of amenities one would expect to find in a mixed-use district, not one dedicated to industrial uses.
Ford Allen on March 09, 2008, at 01:09AM – #1
I completely agree with Kate Bartolo. The definition of an industrial user in 100 year old buildings on 10,000 sqft lots tends toward entrepreneurs with start-ups and several employees rather than huge manufacturers. With the impending recession these creative ventures are sourly needed to keep our city dynamic. These relatively small firms can grow into viable businesses that contribute to the community if given the chance. Loft developments that create this kind of 2000 sqft space for real entrepreneurs are more suited to the older industrial districts than the 750 sqft apartments without walls that are causing all the fuss over the loss of industrial land downtown. However, zoning as well as planning changes have made 2000 sqft spaces all but impossible to permit these days. This is a fine example of how the needs of the business community are not being addressed by our city departments. It is neither possible to convert these industrial buildings to actual live/WORK spaces, with the emphasis on the earning-a-living aspect of that definition, nor use the buildings for heavy industrial purposes. The buildings then are either used "illegally" by entrepreneurial tenants or sit vacant, waiting for that developer with the political chops to push permits through CRA for condos. The city is defeating itself by not embracing the needs of its residents.
av2ts on March 10, 2008, at 11:32AM – #2
Please explain why 2000 square foot live/work spaces are all but impossible to permit?? I see many such newly converted examples all over downtown...
And if bars and restaurants are the concern, there is nothing limiting them from opening up in the M (manufacturing) zones.
But there will be no market for industrial users and the jobs they create if the area gets "priced" by the market as being ok residential. That was the direction things were headed before the planning dept. stepped in.
Ford Allen on March 11, 2008, at 12:58AM – #3
To:av2ts
Because of changes in zoning regulations, there is no longer an AIR exemption for the occupancy load. The change went from an exemption rule for AIR of 1 occupant per 750 sqft of space, which allowed for large spaces for several occupants, to the regular ARO rate of 1 per 250 sqft. The ARO is the regular occupancy rate for residential units and makes 2000 sqft spaces very hard to permit. One would need two exterior exits for each unit or two separate hallways to the exterior for each space. In a multi story structure this quickly becomes impossible. What makes a unit residential is a bathroom with a shower and a kitchen with a sink and stove. The many examples that you may see all over town are either permitted before 2002, are on the ground floor or are much smaller than 2000 sqft.
I agree with you about industrial users getting priced out of downtown. Although I believe that entrepreneurs are the appropriate industrial users for the old warehouses downtown. These artist and artisans expect to have the possibility of staying overnight in their spaces to make their businesses that much more viable financially. Thus the need for kitchens and baths and the live/work designation.
Purely residential conversions with 750 sqft spaces are not practical for most entrepreneurs. But it may be the building codes themselves that have transformed the downtown landscape even more than developers. The elimination of the AIR exemption to the zoning code may be to blame for the glut of purely living "live/work" condos.
Scott Mercer on March 11, 2008, at 04:36PM – #4
Fisherman's Outlet is the best seafood to be had downtown for the price.
Water Grill might be a bit better but it costs 5 to 10 times as much.
dando guerra on March 11, 2008, at 10:13PM – #5
Since 2001, not a single unit of affordable housing has been produced on land converted from industrial (except a handful paid for by CRA). Meanwhile, millions of square feet of land elsewhere in downtown-- historic core, south park, etc-- is ready for residential development. But since developers can get land for 1/3 of the price if its zoned industrial, then convince their councilmembers to override the policy of the city and convert it to residential, why would anyone be as stupid as to do projects anywhere else? And how many real 'artists' could afford a $600,000 loft? Ironically, some who favor converting swaths of downtown's industrial land to 'artist' condos are basically supporting a continuation of Los Angeles robust history of urban development by real estate speculation, rather than by good planning.
The gentlemen from the seafood co. that spoke at PLUM meeting voiced a very real problem: that expanding businesses are forced out of the city because of lack of room to grow and/or poor infrastructure. There are also hundreds of small entrepreneurial businesses that locate in this same area to start/grow businesses. As long as land use decisions continue to be made project-by-project, case-by-case instead of through a real planing process, speculation will continue to price out downtown industrial businesses and prevent the city from being able to plan for parks, transit, infrastructure and other fundamentals that everyone agrees is needed.
You don't have to take my word for it. Click here to read about the thriving industrial entrepreneurs of Los Angeles-- including many green tech industries-- on the front cover of the Los Angeles Business Journal this week