3 ms·

The one in the photo is probably one of the nicest looking "dingbats" in LA I've ever seen. Most of them don't look that charmingly kitschy or have paint anywh

The one in the photo is probably one of the nicest looking "dingbats" in LA I've ever seen. Most of them don't look that charmingly kitschy or have paint anywhere near that fresh. The typical LA dingbat is a shade of gray brought on by road dust covering whitewash with no one to care enough to hose it down every now and then. While there are some that actually are well taken care of, the majority of are reminiscent of brutalist Soviet architecture; although much of said architecture somehow manages to be more appealing. They often look as if they were built way back when I Love Lucy was still being filmed and haven't seen much if any love since. Though I just disparaged dingbats, I believe it's more of them that we actually need right now, albeit with some modern flare. Perhaps they don't even have to be true "dingbats", but simply smaller apartment complexes that are simultaneously affordable but not decrepit. Unless I'm simply not seeing it, no meaningful number of such apartments are being built around LA. Practically every new development is luxury apartments with starting prices in the high $2000s, and it's almost irrelevant what neighborhood you look at. The amount of regulatory overhead for development in California, from the state down to the municipality, incentivizes developers to build luxury apartments because those have the best chance of at least breaking even after years of back and forth. Municipalities subsidize these developments because they supposedly raise the potential value of the area in general, bringing in residents with lots of spending money. And we wonder why fewer young people are bothering to move out of mom and dad's home.

ShadowBanThis01 3y ago
They're ugly trash, and they often go right up to the sidewalk as depicted in that picture. They are NOT what the city needs; although lies to the contrary drove the passage of corrupt legislation to allow developers to build 10 units where a single house stands... with no permits needed or local review or override possible. Meanwhile, boarded-up Macy's stores, the dying malls they anchor, and the vast parking lots growing weeds around them stand empty. Those sites have already suffered the costs of density, with every tree cut down and the ground paved over. But politicians have targeted already-residental neighborhoods for destruction instead, against popular opinion. L.A. is ugly and barren enough without more Kleenex boxes like these "dingbats" lining the streets. This never-ending hysteria about "the housing shortage" is an excuse for more graft perpetrated by politicians and the developers who own them. There's plenty of opportunity to build housing in L.A. without destroying single-family neighborhoods. But that just won't deliver the easy profits that building permit-free offers to developers, and to the corporations that are buying up entire neighborhoods. Which is another problem the state is ignoring. As corporations buy entire tracts, already-difficult home ownership is going to become IMPOSSIBLE for future generations... denying them the greatest opportunity to build wealth throughout their lives. Corporations don't die and hand their houses down or turn them over to new families. Disgusting scams all around.
- ravenstine 3y ago
  Yeah they're pretty ugly IMO, but perhaps you missed my point that we can have "dingbats" without them actually being dingbats, if that makes any sense. I agree that the humongous cube with barren outer walls and carports under precarious-looking stilts isn't what we should want more of. There's just something not right about small to mid size apartment complexes becoming low-vacancy relics of the past in favor of "premium experiences" that can't be afforded by those starting out without relying on daddy for money. But that's the situation being created by incentives, which those with the most influence are turning a blind eye to. Otherwise, I agree with what you said.
  - ShadowBanThis01 3y ago
    For sure, and I agree with you that it's possible. But replacing actual houses with tracts of these would be a sad, regressive mistake that's just not necessary. Replacing these with better ones, and even slightly taller ones, would be reasonable and useful.
Karrot_Kream 3y ago
> Unless I'm simply not seeing it, no meaningful number of such apartments are being built around LA. FWIW many new developments in CA come with Inclusionary Zoning incentives or requirements which require a percentage of units to be at different affordability levels. But these requirements need to be carefully designed to not make the projects DOA and still aren't generating enough units to really make a difference yet.

ShadowBanThis01 3y ago

They're ugly trash, and they often go right up to the sidewalk as depicted in that picture. They are NOT what the city needs; although lies to the contrary drove the passage of corrupt legislation to allow developers to build 10 units where a single house stands... with no permits needed or local review or override possible. Meanwhile, boarded-up Macy's stores, the dying malls they anchor, and the vast parking lots growing weeds around them stand empty. Those sites have already suffered the costs of density, with every tree cut down and the ground paved over. But politicians have targeted already-residental neighborhoods for destruction instead, against popular opinion. L.A. is ugly and barren enough without more Kleenex boxes like these "dingbats" lining the streets. This never-ending hysteria about "the housing shortage" is an excuse for more graft perpetrated by politicians and the developers who own them. There's plenty of opportunity to build housing in L.A. without destroying single-family neighborhoods. But that just won't deliver the easy profits that building permit-free offers to developers, and to the corporations that are buying up entire neighborhoods. Which is another problem the state is ignoring. As corporations buy entire tracts, already-difficult home ownership is going to become IMPOSSIBLE for future generations... denying them the greatest opportunity to build wealth throughout their lives. Corporations don't die and hand their houses down or turn them over to new families. Disgusting scams all around.

ravenstine 3y ago
Yeah they're pretty ugly IMO, but perhaps you missed my point that we can have "dingbats" without them actually being dingbats, if that makes any sense. I agree that the humongous cube with barren outer walls and carports under precarious-looking stilts isn't what we should want more of. There's just something not right about small to mid size apartment complexes becoming low-vacancy relics of the past in favor of "premium experiences" that can't be afforded by those starting out without relying on daddy for money. But that's the situation being created by incentives, which those with the most influence are turning a blind eye to. Otherwise, I agree with what you said.
- ShadowBanThis01 3y ago
  For sure, and I agree with you that it's possible. But replacing actual houses with tracts of these would be a sad, regressive mistake that's just not necessary. Replacing these with better ones, and even slightly taller ones, would be reasonable and useful.

Karrot_Kream 3y ago

> Unless I'm simply not seeing it, no meaningful number of such apartments are being built around LA. FWIW many new developments in CA come with Inclusionary Zoning incentives or requirements which require a percentage of units to be at different affordability levels. But these requirements need to be carefully designed to not make the projects DOA and still aren't generating enough units to really make a difference yet.