6 ms·
A lot of single-family housing burned in the fires. For the sake of density, we need to put in more apartments, and ones that don't cost $3-4K/mo for a 1-2 bed.
by unquietwiki 2y ago
A lot of single-family housing burned in the fires. For the sake of density, we need to put in more apartments, and ones that don't cost $3-4K/mo for a 1-2 bed. Metro is expanding ahead of the Olympics, and Waymo services a decent chunk of the city (not the burned areas though); you could go with less parking to save costs, but a lot of folks have roommates, so you end up needing double the parking, and that clogs up the streets... there are no easy answers to this situation, unfortunately.
- calciphus 2y agoLA is one of the most car-centric cities I've ever seen. "we can have less parking" would require a fundamental shift in culture. Doing it right after a major fire where people are alive precisely because they were able to put themselves and a few belongings into their personal vehicle and go where they could shelter with friends or family is bordering on an impossible ask.
- whimsicalism 2y agoin 10 years time self-driving will be all over LA, we should build with foresight
- grajaganDev 2y agoI think this is optimistic.
- grardb 2y agoThe idea that self-driving cars will be anywhere in any timeframe is actually very pessimistic to me.
- whimsicalism 2y agoreally? i can already call a self-driving car in LA but the idea that this will scale up in the next 10 years is out there?
- HDThoreaun 2y agoWaymo is not self driving. It’s remote operated, much more expensive. People will not give up their vehicle for an expensive taxi service. There are no self driving cars that actually work and there are none on the horizon.
- whimsicalism 2y agoit’s not remote operated and it is also not much more expensive and i have no idea why you assume costs will be constant. i take waymos all the time, often replacing my car, i have never had a single issue
- HDThoreaun 2y agoLiterally so easy to find out that it’s remote operated with the operators taking over on average once per mile. That can’t scale in a cost effective way unless you only use it like once a week. People who need to drive everyday can’t afford it. Otherwise they’d just be ubering everywhere now instead of owning a car.
- whimsicalism 2y agoyou literally do not know what you’re talking about, source me a number on the “once per mile” intervention - i’ve driven hundreds of miles in waymo and never had an intervention of course they can scale in a cost effective manner, the operating costs are theoretically the same as just owning a car but they get to amortize it across many different users and don’t have to pay for human labor
- HDThoreaun 2y agoThey do have to pay the human labor because it’s not self driving.
- whimsicalism 2y ago
- thrance 2y agoI don't see what that's got to do with city planning and increasing density.
- whimsicalism 2y agofeel like it has obvious salience around the necessity of parking requirements going forward just like if a rail line opened up near you
- fragmede 2y agoNo need to wait 10 years, Waymo currently operates in LA.
- kristjansson 2y agoIn a service area that _very_ purposefully stops before the sort of narrow, hilly streets that covered most of the evacuation zones.
- whimsicalism 2y agoyeah i’m sure that’ll stay the same for 10 years, technology famously stays constant
- kristjansson 2y agoI suspect you're right, I was pointing out the current limits. But so what if they do have full coverage in 10 years? We can build apartments with no/fewer parking spaces, and therefore somewhat lower costs. Why do we build those sort of apartments on some of the most desirable land on the planet? Look at the One Coast development on the bottom of Sunset - denser than SFH, plenty of parking, and no trouble selling condos starting at $3-5m. At that's at the bottom of the hill!
- whimsicalism 2y agowhy should we only build large buildings in places where poor people live? i don't see why these neighborhoods should be reserved for the wealthy rather than mixed income if the demand is there. generally the market pressure for larger buildings is going to be highest in wealthy areas and for good reason
- kristjansson 2y agoThey're not reserved for the wealthy, they're desirable. Self-driving and associated parking minimum reductions doesn't materially change those economics. If you had permission to build large buildings with an ocean view and beach access ... you'd build it with parking and start the studios at $1m like they do half a mile away on Ocean. Build 115% of the units by omitting parking, and you'd probably still sell a studio for $1m, honestly. The demand is deep, global, and pretty inelastic. Does Monaco have apartments for $300k? Does the LES? West Palm Beach?
- sagarm 2y agoPlenty of people had to abandon their cars and flee on foot
- likeabatterycar 2y agoMalibu and the Palisades were exclusive neighborhoods where celebrities and other well-off industry personnel lived. They're not adding low income apartments or execute any urbanist pipe-dream for the same reason they're not bulldozing Pac Heights to install homeless shelters. Not going to happen. Ever.
- piva00 2y agoAltadena isn't one of those exclusive neighbourhoods though.
- likeabatterycar 2y agoMiddle class and minorities in Altadena don't want to raise their families in Soviet-style apartments because some hipster urbanist thinks its best. They want SFH, that's why they live there.
- piva00 2y agoUsing those buzzwords really doesn't invite much of a conversation, even less when it's basically strawmanning from your part. Still I will bite a bit... There are many examples of places around the world who managed to intersperse SFH with medium-density housing (3-4 stories apartment buildings) so it's not an either-or situation. For example: many suburbs of Stockholm have developed this way, it allows options based on people's budgets and needs, while also creating enough density to attract local businesses so people are not entirely car-dependent for basic necessities, creates third places for meetings, etc. I'm preaching to the choir though, I do understand you will probably never understand or see it that way given the vitriol you started with. It's quite sad because there are other ways for a community to live that can cater to different needs where mixed-housing exists while also making these neighbourhoods more interesting and livable in themselves.
- whimsicalism 2y agothe electorate controls the people with guns, so we can kinda make whatever we want happen if we vote for it
- bilbo0s 2y agoEveryone wants to rebuild in accordance with their favorite urban planning theory. Very few want to give developers the profits they need to match the profits they get rebuilding in accordance with maximizing the return on their investments. People asking for cheap apartments are just not being realistic. Why rent that square footage at less than luxury prices when the market will readily eat up the square footage at prices far exceeding the national luxury median? And that’s before we even get to the people who want condos or luxury homes. You would basically need to make a law that caps how much an owner can make on his land for some of these ideas to work.
- bryanlarsen 2y agoMultiple apartments should be more profitable than a single family luxury home.
- orionsbelt 2y agoNot in some of these areas. This was some of the best real estate in the country. $80M homes burned down.
- whimsicalism 2y agogenerally “most expensive real estate in country” is where profits from apartments/condos is highest, not the other way around
- orionsbelt 2y agoNot up in the hills or on oceanside lots on the Pacific Ocean next to the PCH. I’m no builder, but my sense is, even if the zoning were relaxed, you are at best building like a quadplex. Four apartments are not going to equal an $80M home. Maybe in the flats of the palisades.
- ta1243 2y ago$70m of that $80m house is the land its on, and that hasn't been destroyed.
- rayiner 2y agoWe shouldn’t rebuild at all in many of these places.
- grajaganDev 2y agoWe should build glass and steel high density apartment buildings with no parking.
- bilbo0s 2y agoThose apartments would all cost more than 3k a month. Putting up high rises in LA is expensive. (Earthquakes, fires, etc). So there is zero motivation for developers to not get the maximum amount of rent possible for a given square footage. No one has explained why a given developer should rent for less than 3K when they could easily rent the same space fo 4K? Is the government providing an incentive covering the shortfall?
- lavelganzu 2y agoBuild enough housing & prices go down. It's worked everywhere it has been tried, and it'll work in LA, too.
- indymike 2y agoThis would shift the political dynamics in the rest of the US as people left for car-friendly cities where they could own their homes.
- HDThoreaun 2y agoYou can’t get to these areas without driving. Where will the residents park?
- ravenstine 2y agoThe reason modern apartments in LA cost an arm and a leg is the same one for why new houses are no longer starter homes but McMansions.
- seanmcdirmid 2y agoMcMansion is a Texan thing. New homes in LA are a fairly boxy west coast style. Box housing maximizes square footage use and takes advantage of the fact that it doesn't really snow in LA so no very sloping roof is needed.
- kristjansson 2y agoDensity is an imperative for Los Angeles, and big sprawl-y cities generally. And we're building density! DTLA is getting more residential, train stops are getting surrounded by everything from 5+1s to superblocks, Santa Monica is getting taller, ... That global imperative does not translate into a local demand that every SFH (and in particular, these SFHs) be replaced with denser housing. As you realize in your comment, the damaged areas aren't exactly well-positioned to support substantially denser housing.
- seanmcdirmid 2y agoThese are the palisades though so very hilly with lots of great views. I can't really imagine building apartments up there, and they are really not very centrally located anyways, not like lower Brentwood or most of Santa Monica. Even Hong Kong builds mostly between its hills and only on them when really rich people are involved (e.g. Victoria Peak).