3 ms·
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 drov
by 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 agoYeah 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 agoFor 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.