So You're Saying Downtown Can't Take Density?

lies, damn lies and statistics.

i agree. i think people misinterpretted the numbers in that survey. to me, the salient number was the combination of transit users and walker/bikers. i can't remember the exact number but it was somewhere between 25% - 30% who weren't using a car to get to work. i don't know if that included people who work from home. if it didn't, then the percentage of people staying off the roads is even greater.

to me, in LA, when over 1/4 of the population goes to work but doesn't choose/need to drive that is significant.

i like to drive and i do it more than i should. i'm learning to change, but there's 31 years of habit to overcome. if i have to travel 10 or 12 blocks in downtown, my first instinct is to drive. like many americans, the only thing that will keep me from getting in my car is an alternative (walking, subway, etc) that is easier, quicker and undeniably better. part of making that happen is making good transit systems, the other part (and often the more powerful part, IMHO) is making car travel worse, making car travel so slow and stressful that walking/biking/whatever is so obviously the easier option that you'd have to be a moron to try to drive. to me, that's what it's like in parts of nyc or london or even san francisco (parking being the great issue). when density creates the inevitiable traffic headaches, the citizens adapt. they walk. they bike. they take the subway. i don't think it's a bad thing. in fact, i think it's one of the few things that will actually change our behavior.

The key sentence in that story is: "Goldberg said she did not expect a big increase in infrastructure needs for downtown, in part because she is skeptical that much of the available 9 million square feet in possible air rights would be sold any time soon."

The major trend still is for companies and much of LA's population to head out to areas west of La Cienega Blvd, or to Warner Center, Thousand Oaks or Irvine or even farther away. And it's anyone's guess how truly large is the demand for living space in downtown, and how long that demand will last.

In some ways, a city like LA should be so lucky if a need for higher density really does become a problem in the future.

Color me unimpressed, but the concerns of Professor Loukaitou-Sideris seem entirely reflexive. Unfortunately, the Times article doesn't really delve into the details of her concerns. Then again, quite possibly her comments do constitute the extent of her concerns. Basically, she seems to be saying density could cause problems. Well, yeah, I guess it is possible.

What I find very odd is that people outside downtown are fussing about an issue which won't directly impact them. Moreover, those who density will impact -- those of us who live here -- keep saying bring it on! I pine for the day when downtown suffers from having too many residents. As one who has lived here for near a decade, it is patently obvious there is ample space for more residents and development in general. Just take a walk and you always encounter these blocks which are just dead with absolutely no street life of any kind.

I take considerable comfort in the comments of Goldberg since she is actually familiar with the general plan and what is going on downtown. She seems focused on the important gritty details like sewers. She is saying that downtown's infrastructure is adequate, particularly since she doesn't anticipate the air rights are going to lead to a huge amount of new development.

This kind of intellectual fussing by experts without real substance to the discussion seems like a hollow media story. The reporter called up some experts and pitched the issue and got some negative feedback and uninformed handwringing. Voila! Media piece on the 'controversy'. L.A. Times editors should have killed this non-story.

Maybe the Times is using a loose definition of "Downtown." The areas being developed along the periphery of Downtown (such as those that are west of the 110 or further south by the 10) aren't as comfortably walkable as those in the center, and I can kind of see how these projects might conceivably overwhelm the infrastructure of the area. However, I get the sense that these sorts of worries are based on the misconception that Downtown LA is something like Downtown Manhattan and is utilized by most Angelenos. Downtown isn't re-emerging as the city or county center, it's just becoming a more vibrant neighborhood.

Yes - it is ironic that there would be all these sudden "concerns" about density Downtown. David - absolutely. People who don't hesitate to bash Downtown for being a "ghost town" (not true) or a "dead zone" (waaaay not true) seem to flip over and bash us for working to build up the area. It shows me that these people have arguments that ring hollow, and basically are anti-development regardless of where it is, who it benefits or affects, and would probably have nothing better to do if it weren't for people actually building things! Nothing triggers all the NIMBYs like a large project, especially if it looks like it will bring more people into an area and (horrors) increase density! I would like to see a survey of Downtown residents... many of whom (myself included) live here precisely BECAUSE it is in the center of the city. Densification is exactly what Downtown needs - for a million reasons - as iterated in many posts on this blog - increased pedestrian life, more commercial and retail growth, a more vibrant street scene, perhaps even a greater sense of community and pride in this city that is so often maligned by our residents.

Ghost town my posterior! Even if all the air rights were used for residential development (the Times story calculated something like 7,500 new units) - that would add approximately 12- 16,000 residents Downtown... in a city of over 4 million. Hey - it's a blip on the radar screen... 1/4 of one percent. So many of the Downtown bashers I hold my nose over call for LA to be "more like New York"... as if that would make our fair city a better place (it wouldn't, and it won't happen - even if we achieve that level of density in places we'll still be relatively laid-back LA). Well... Manhattan has 1.6 million residents in something like 23 square miles, or an area not much larger than the size of Downtown within the freeway loop. We have around 30,000 residents. To achieve "Manhattanization" we'd need to increase Downtown's population 50 times what it is today.

So much for the "density argument" put forth in the Times. Build it. Build it all. Build it up. Build it smart. Build it with community input. Speaking strictly for myself, Downtown needs a whole bunch of people to really live up to its' name. We're on the path to 100,000 in 10 or 15 years. That's a good start. Wait until we have that many people here and see what happens with mass transit... it will take off. Then when that doubles, and doubles again... we will start looking and acting like the great city that LA promises to be. Naysayers, gloom and doom proponents and NIMBYs have their point of view...and that's fine. I have a different view. Let's get on with building this city into the new century.

Regarding that survey of Downtown residents.

I believe it said that 65% of residents "rarely or never" use public transit. That means that 35% of residents I guess, use public transit often or occasionally.

I would wager that in other neighborhoods, the proportion of residents that use public transit occasionally or often is something along the order of 5%-10%. I don't know that for a fact, as this survey only covered downtown residents. But how many people living in Brentwood, Sherman Oaks or Sierra Madre do you honestly think are using public transit often or occasionally? Do you really think it's more than 5-10%?

Which means, I have a hunch that downtown residents are doing MORE than their share of public transit riding, thank you very much. Myth put to rest.

My wife and I both walk to work and believe it will add decades to our lives.

But the reality is we still feel the need to have a car available to us 24/7 and are willing to pay those costs every month for that peace of mind.

What I think the urban planners are saying is just that, a higher residential density in Downtown will necessitate either: more parking for car-clingers like us; a better network of public transportation which lets people let go of their cars altogether (like New York); or public transportation which will at least forgo the individual auto as the primary choice for a commute to employment outside of Downtown.

But the air rights sale concerns me for another reason, I think it is not enough money for the variance being granted.

The message I read from the urban planners is it is inevitable the variances being handed out to any developer willing to spend money Downtown will surpass the existing infrastructure (freeways, parking, public transportation, green space, etc.) -- it's just a matter of time.

In other words, the air rights sale must come hand in hand with planning for increased density.