Industrial Zoning and Downtown

I couldn't agree more with the statement: "We need to be very careful not to get rid of the one part of Downtown where these sort of spaces can be created." Zoning is a tool that has been used in a heavy-handed way and the result has been that our city is surrounded by endless bland, uniform, semi-lifeless seas of tract houses and ubiquitous stucco shopping centers on oversized, pedestrian unfriendly mega-streets. Zoning for the Downtown industrial area, including the Arts District, must, must, must work with the existing infrastructure and quirky atmosphere. No - we don't need another Irvine or City of Industry type of "industrial park" area intruding into Downtown. There is nothing bland or uniform about this area now, and so many of those recently built so-called "industrial parks" are a monotonous dead-zone. Perhaps a zoning overlay that encourages adaptive reuse and residential development within the existing built environment as opposed to either tearing it down or zoning out residential uses, is the answer. LA did a fine job with the 1999 Adaptive Reuse Ordinance for the Historic Core and adjacent areas. I daresay it is why we are all here on this blog right now... Yes - we need to not only keep the ability for "heavy arts" like welding and seriously BIG sculpture - we as a community should enthusiastically champion it. LA is known worldwide for being a hotbed of innovation - and our artists are a fundamental part of that. Through my professional work I've come to understand and respect the power of local activism and outreach, and if we get behind this idea of furthering the Arts District as a serious place of making - making - making art, we as a community Downtown will benefit, as will the entire city. The zoning must work to support not only the development of the Arts District, but to discourage the sort of "over-gentrification" that so often pushes the artists elsewhere. Loft developers in the Arts District can be encouraged to facilitate this by including disclosures and language in their sales contracts affirming that the area is zoned for "heavy art making" (or some more succint term - it's too late at night for me to think up anything better...) - this would help defuse the future grousing and complaining from residential buyers about noise, smells, traffic, etc. Oh - by the way - the industrial uses need to be supported too. After all, they are what gives this entire area the "character" so attractive to artists!

The 'character' that attracted artists was loooow rents and big spaces. The industrial qualities are appreciaited by artists because artists make the best from whatever they are given. The low rents and most of the artists left when the city made it legal and rents began to go up because more people were willing to move there. The cycle is nearly complete. We now have new apartment buildings filling in where earthquakes took great artist's buildings almost 20 years ago.

It was in this area that the adaptive re-use ordinance was pre-tested, fleshed out and made into something real by a generation of artists bent on nothing more than improving what they had found themselves in the middle of. The city made it legal but required (necessary) improvements, leading to the inevitable 'gentrification' of the arts district.

I am happy that our new planner brings experience that an arts district is important to the vitality of a city, but I am afraid it is too late for east of Alameda. The rents are not coming back down and the remaining artists and galleries wonder where the advantage is.

If the city is serious about having an artists district, and cognizant of the role artists have played in revitalizing Downtown, then they could respond by helping to identify the next area where artists can afford to live and work in the kinds of spaces that function for them, including looow rents and high ceilings. It doesn't need to be pretty or even very safe, because the new residents will turn it into something remarkable and wholly unexpected. The city can then work with the arts community (never that easy, but doable) to make the new arts district into a permanent functioning place the entire city can be proud of and enjoy visiting.

Maybe an old indoor mall . . .

Reading the article, my impression is the tension at the meeting was because developers have been used (via wavers and influence gained thru generous campaign contributions to electeds) to calling the shots and are horrified that anything other than their self-interest should be taken into account in re zoning and planning. I was glad to see Jack Kyser of the LAEDC quoted "A lot of these people want to put up expensive housing, but how deep is that market?"

There was a point in the 90s that the downtown skyskraper building spree should have had brakes applied to it. Instead in an atmosphere similar to the current one in re condos etc. developers were allowed to basically plan and build wherever and whatever they thought the market could bear. And when the economy reversed, a lot of projects in the pipeline went up and stood empty or spent years with minimal occupancy. This was a major drag on the downtown economy.

Carol Schatz's comment "The market should determine where housing is built," and disdaining "governmental interference" doesn't stand up to scrutiny for those of us who know what happenes when developers are allowed to act unfettered. It is as if they learned nothing and want to repeat the mistakes of the past. Hopefully the city this time will stand its ground and do what is best for the community, not just a narrow subset--however powerful and influential.

I agree, Industrial zoning is important because it provides steady paying jobs to young people who may not have a High school diploma. They pay much better and provide more benefits, and job security than the service sector.

Without these jobs they wouldn't be able to support their families or afford a decent home.

The developers want to convert warehouses to condos because it is inexpensive and a trend. There are still many vacant lots in Downtown and City West that haven't been built up. Why not build housing where it's needed in areas already suitable for new housing ??

Since there's only room for rail spurs and trains, how about putting trains back in there? They could easily be electrified to cut down on pollution. All the tracks could be connected up to the Alameda Corridor, which comes right near this area. Direct shipping into the Alameda Corridor East, and from there on into the mainline railroad system for access to the entire nation.

Actually, that was the first dumb thing I've heard Carol Schatz utter over the years. I'm very surprised she doesn't appear to understand the role the planning agencies play.

I totally agree with you Scott, it would definately cut down on the traffic and damage to roads that big trailer trucks produce.Being a local train conductor I know that the tracks are still there, but like you said most the industies have left or swtiched to using trucks.

I am sure Carol Schatz understands the role the planning agencies play. She was simply hewing to the line of argument her constituents are pushing.

The rule of thumb I have heard is 500+ miles plus train transportation is more cost-effective than trucks for moving goods, etc.

I was driving home last night and I had to get off the freeway early. So I ended up driving through this part of downtown. It is said that industrial downtown's layout is antiquated for modern business requirements. One thought which occurred to me is if the business is a large Fortune 500 corporation, I suspect the idea is correct. But, I think there's something to be said for the more modest requirements of smaller businesses. Not every business needs a 10 acre site. In fact, I bet most don't.

Furthermore, when one speaks of antiquated infrastructure, it suggests the area is stagnant or dying. I don't believe this is correct. I often drive Washington, Alameda, Mateo, Long Beach. It appears to my unsophisticated eyes there's plenty of business and industrial activity going on. Riding Metrolink through the area suggests the same. It would be good to see some data on this point. Of course, the area should be modernized to remain competitive.

One thing which I think the city could focus productively on is figuring out how to help small to mid-sized businesses grow in these industrial areas. I think it would be a losing proposition to try and create mega industrial sites to compete directly with outlying areas, which have much cheaper land costs. Why not focus on the existing strengths of the city incubating and encouraging small to mid-sized businesses? Here I think the city would have an advantage.

How this squares with the debate about re-zoning industrial land for residential use, I'm not sure. Hopefully, the powers-that-be are taking the long view of the situation.

I think we both agree that compared to modern industrial sites, downtown Los Angeles' infrastructure could be upgraded and improved. I just wonder if it is really accurate to say the area is a total economic basketcase. I'd like to see some empirical data about the economic health of the area.

Also, I don't think it is a good idea that such significant policy decisions be made upon our anecdotal observations. My concern as a citizen of the city is that developers would exploit such perceptions (not facts) for their own self-interest which may well contradict the city's long-term economic self-interest.

You may well be completely correct in your observations. But first, let's see the data documenting the situation before leaping to conclusions. That's all I'm trying to get at.

There are plenty of businesses that don't need large semis or acreage to do operate.

These are small family businesses that practice skills handed down from generation to generation. Glasscutting, auto painting, furniture restoration, industrial arts. A delivery van or pickup truck is enough to get most things done.

They might not have assembly lines, cargo bays, or loading systems.

But they provide jobs that the local population is familiar with, has specialized in, and has a large labor pool available for.

It is a huge burden to drive down Alameda street on cracks and monster potholes, only to be stopped dead by a semi-truck parked across the width of the road, engine idle, the driver absent. That's why I avoid those places if I have no business being there.

These areas and the employment are irreplaceable anywhere else in town.