
Single-family homes cover almost half of Los Angeles - prostoalex
https://la.curbed.com/2018/9/10/17827982/single-family-houses-los-angeles-zoning-rules-explained
======
slg
>As Morrow points out, Los Angeles was zoned to hold up to 10 million
residents in 1960. By 1990, the city had capacity for just 3.9 million
residents.

That single line sums up a huge source of problems in Los Angeles from high
rents to homelessness to traffic to lack of public transit. People want to
move to, live in, and work in the city, but its zoning laws have unnaturally
restricted growth for decades.

~~~
GW150914
Surely part of the problem is that so many people love or want to live in a
place that long-term, can’t get water, is subject to deveststing earthquakes,
and is overpopulated in terms of what can be sustained in a sane manner over
time? It seems like the last thing to do is fill the place up with more
people. Even if you reject that premise, what you call “unnaturally restricted
growth” is being applied to a truly massive city. What would unrestricted
growth look like exactly? After all was said and done, would it still be such
a desirable place to live?

I get the impression from CA property discussions (of SF especially) on this
forum, that anything which drives up rents and makes it hard for the typical
person on this forum to live there is de facto, wrong. It’s _obvious_ and the
received wisdom that the solution is to build build build. Are you so sure the
solution for everyone who isn’t looking for a high-end techie salary (i.e.
most people) isn’t for the industry to be less concentrated in one city?

Plus the whole water poured into a desert and earthquake things.

Now I realize this is all a massively unpopular viewpoint around these parts,
but these parts are at their most “in a bubble” around this issue I think.
It’s no shock that the people who stand to benefit most from their preferred
solution are fanatically in favor of it, especially when the alternatives
involve (in the short term) sacrifice, and ideologically undesired outcomes
like continued regulation. The thing is, between people who spent a lifetime
in a city not wanting it to turn into blocks of high-rises, and an influx
chasing VC money, there really is more than the dichotomy of “the virtuous”
and “the NIMBY.”

Everyone here would benefit from reading _Cadillac Desert_ by Marc Reisner.

Edit: I knew going in that this was going to be downvoted to death, but I hold
out some hope that it can get some thoughtful rebuttals too. Preferably light
on the glib “Natural disasters happen in many paces” canard.

~~~
01100011
I think there is a sort of millenial grudge that prevents otherwise
intelligent people from realizing that unrestricted population growth in a
desirable area can lead to bad outcomes.

I usually use an extreme example to make my point: if 100 million people want
to live in Hawaii, should current Hawaiians be forced/guilted/compelled to
accommodate them? Is there any point at which you say to people 'no, you have
to live somewhere less desirable'?

I'm not saying LA is free of problems, but I'm pretty sure there aren't too
many problems that can be solved by cramming more people into LA. I would like
to see the density increase, sure, but then return areas to open space(as if
that will ever happen, but a boy can dream).

~~~
slg
This type of zoning restriction only protects current property owners. They
don't protect all current residents. If 100 million people wanted to live in
Hawaii, almost every renter would be forced off the island in favor of one of
those 100 million who was willing and able to pay more. Many of the property
owners would also end up leaving once it became clear how much their property
had increased in value. The current Hawaiians wouldn't be
"forced/guilted/compelled to accommodate" the new residents. They would
instead by "forced/guilted/compelled to" move off the island completely.

Similarly the 4 million people who live in Los Angeles are not the same 4
million who lived in the city 20 years ago. The actual makeup of the city is
constantly shuffled around as prices of rent change and different sets of
people are willing and able to afford to live there. "Cramming more people
into LA" would actually lead to more stability for current residents as it
would stall the price increases of real estate by keeping the supply of
housing more in sync with the rising demand for housing.

------
StudentStuff
I find most of LA really hard to spend time in. The mangled road network
(Grids? Nah bruh, lets have lots of dead ends!), constant drone of traffic
everywhere, and few things being walkable makes it not the most enjoyable
place to visit.

Seattle is up there on the traffic scale, but at least in the neighborhoods
there aren't 6 lane monster roads criss crossing every which way, with few
pedestrian crossings and no lanes for bikes or busses. Traffic calming has
helped quite a bit too, though I imagine reducing a 4 lane road to a 2 lane
road with parking, a center turn lane and bike lanes would get the average
politician recalled down in LA.

~~~
IvyMike
Los Angeles is a great place to live, but I wouldn't want to visit.

That being said, the revitalized downtown, the slowly growing metro system,
and uber/lyft to fill the gaps have made it better than it once was. It still
is a massive monstrosity of a city, so it's never going to be as "walkable" as
compact city like SF.

~~~
bksenior
This is a perfect way to put it

"Los Angeles is a great place to live, but I wouldn't want to visit."

Once you understand how to travel the city, it's hard to live anywhere else
because quality of life is so ridiculously high. It's why people tend not to
leave if they make it past their two year mark.

~~~
flyinglizard
Genuinely interested - what makes LA a great place to live?

~~~
8f2ab37a-ed6c
As far as the larger LA area goes, it's a few hours from Vegas, next to the
beach, Santa Barbara and San Diego next door. Access to various Mojave type
deserts and national parks (Joshua Tree is amazing). Big Bear / mountains
nearby. Various price points of housing, anything from affordable-ish family
homes to expensive upscale condos (downtown) and ridiculous mansions
(Hollywood hills, Malibu, Belair etc). Great for all stages of life, whether
you're young and want to mingle, or have a family and want to live somewhere
safe (Pasadena, OC). Access to decent UC schools. Absurd amount of
entertainment all day every day for whatever taste you have. Food from every
corner of the Earth. Ethnic diversity. Major airport next door. If you're into
fashion, arts, cinema, music, tech, real estate, science, there's a place here
for you with that interest. Tons of people from all walks of life. Oh yeah,
shorts and t-shirt weather all year round.

Only big downsides are commuting and cost of living. Also homeless everywhere
unless you're locked up in a suburb, but not as bad as SF since they stick to
certain areas. Skid Row is both fascinating and terrifying to visit.

Please don't come here though, rent is going up as it is.

~~~
blackhaz
Was visiting LA a couple years ago, originally from Prague. Absolutely
fantastic city to visit if you do your homework first and know where you wanna
go. Wander about like in a European city - not going to work.

I was set on relocating there but real estate prices, taxes and distance from
relatives forced me to backpedal. I think LA has a fantastic fuutre,
especially once efficient public transit system will fully emerge. Recently I
was shocked to learn that LA has better air quality than Prague. Can you
believe that? Everybody drives fucking diesel on a stick here while you guys
are migrating to hybrids. Go LA.

~~~
fjabre
Excellent breakdown. People are quick to hate on LA. You cannot think of it as
a traditional city. If you do your homework LA is an amazing place to visit
with a ton to do and lots of friendly people to engage with under sunny skies
most of the year.

------
emodendroket
I found Los Angeles pretty unpleasant in that it combined all the least
pleasant parts of suburban living with the least pleasant parts of urban
living; I guess this is part of why.

~~~
fjabre
I actually find it a benefit that you can have a house with a yard in the
middle of LA.

Compare that to New York where people are stacked up on top of each other like
ants.

For the cost of a studio apartment in Manhattan one could rent a free standing
house in Los Angeles and with year round beautiful weather.

~~~
TheTrotters
But then you have no choice but to get everywhere by car. It's an awful life
for some people.

~~~
trixie_
You mean people without a car? Because the freedom of having a car and being
able to go literally anywhere relatively quickly is pretty great. I've lived
in both LA and NYC for a number of years. In both places you can easily live
10 minutes from where you work, or an hour away. Where you live/work is up to
you.

~~~
paulcole
Not having a car is freedom. I’m 35 and have never driven and hopefully never
will. Can’t imagine having another expense and hassle to deal with.

I have a nice bicycle, live near work, and can get to the beach or mountains
fairly easily by either bike or mass transit.

~~~
trixie_
Pick any 2 points in LA and compare the time between driving and public
transit.

Thinking of all the places I travel to around here like the desert, mountains,
Vegas, beaches, etc.. I can't imagine not having a car.

~~~
paulcole
Believe it or not there’s a world outside of LA.

------
nikanj
And 14% of it is parking!
[https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2015/12/parking-
los-a...](https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2015/12/parking-los-angeles-
maps-study/418593/)

------
dawhizkid
I've never lived in LA, but if I did it seems like the neighborhood you choose
to live in would drastically impact your experience in a much more severe way
than other cities because of how long it takes to get from point A to point B
i.e. if you chose to live downtown then basically forget seeing friends or
dating someone who lives in Venice. The only condition in which I could see
myself living there is if my average commute was < 30 minutes, if I had a core
group of friends that lived in the same neighborhood as me, and if I enjoyed
the social aspects of the neighborhood I lived in.

~~~
zjaffee
Venice to Downtown is 25 minutes if you make the drive after 8:30-9pm, where
on the weekends it can be the same the entire day. It does suck when you have
a concert you want to get to that starts at 8, but you do get used to it. Note
that this distance is close to 15 miles anyways, where virtually no one in NYC
is traveling that distance in less than an hour.

~~~
CydeWeys
All of NYC except Far Rockaway and parts of Staten Island are within 15 miles
of midtown, as well as the densest part of NJ including Newark, Jersey City,
and Hoboken. And also the three large airports in the region (JFK, LGA, and
EWR). I rarely travel more than a couple miles on a daily basis.

My point being, distance is relative to the density of the city. When the city
is dense you don't need to travel long distances, so comparing travel time per
distance straight across isn't a relevant comparison. But you're still off
anyway; the average subway speed is 17 mph, and LIRR/MetroNorth are
considerably faster since they make fewer stops.

------
zjaffee
It's important to not forget that half of the land in Los Angeles is the Santa
Monica Mountains (hollywood hills, ect), and the San Fernando Valley.

Now, there are still neighborhoods in central areas that don't have much
multifamily housing, but these are the areas that need to be targeted.
Multifamily sprawl is just as bad if not worse than single family home sprawl,
as it only feeds into traffic. The real problem in LA is a lack of proper
transit oriented development, especially around employment.

I should also add that LA is the densest metro area in the US, largely because
even though LA has so many single family homes, subdivisions are far smaller
than you see in NYC suburbs.

~~~
HillaryBriss
> Multifamily sprawl is just as bad if not worse than single family home
> sprawl, as it only feeds into traffic.

I agree. Constantly intensifying car traffic is at the heart of LA's (and
Southern California's) problems.

LA (and Southern California) will not improve its car traffic density problem
for at least another generation (and probably multiple generations).

------
gesman
I was just flying over LA on sunday and had to take a picture of this "single
house ocean":

[https://imgur.com/a/iMWExcv](https://imgur.com/a/iMWExcv)

Very unusual view.

~~~
chrisper
Is there a reason you are flying in a HighVis vest?

~~~
gesman
Lol

It was cold! And it’s Gore jacket :)

------
Avshalom
To be fair you can subtract out "almost half of Los Angeles" and still be left
over with an entire Chicago... with room to spare.

------
ishikawa
IMHO what happened is that several cities appeared 150 years ago, they grew
and are still growing. Suburbs have grown but there are few cases of cities
starting to emerge in the last 40 years and that is also a way to grow.

------
dnhz
Still though, LA is the densest metropolitan area in the country. Also from
curbed (source being the census):
[https://la.curbed.com/2012/3/26/10385086/los-angeles-is-
the-...](https://la.curbed.com/2012/3/26/10385086/los-angeles-is-the-most-
densely-populated-urban-area-in-the-us)

If you've been to LA, you know that those single-family homes are nearly
touching each other and that the cityscape is very built, with hardly any
empty space.

Yes it's overall not transit friendly, but it's still a huge area that you can
reasonably call urban.

