I know that getting the message out how much LA has urbanized and become dense has been a major goal for LA forumers. And you guys are unquestionably right: Los Angeles is a far more dense and urban city today than in the past and people who don't see that haven't been to LA or are living in the past.

The reasons for your urbanization are obvious: a growing population in the city and the metro area are obvious. Equally obvious though is the limitation that elevation places on development; there are some metro LA landscpes that just can't be used for human development.

But there are others that are. Or might be. That whole Hollywood Hills/Santa Monica Mountains region between the city and the valley becomes low density in a city that is relatively dense. Development in this area has always been there in the canyons (Laurel, Coldwater, Bev Glen, etc.), but spotty in other locations.

So here's the question: is LA ready to tackle the Santa Monicas and turn them into a true urban environment, something akin to the way that San Francisco uranized the higher reaches of Twin Peaks, Mt. Davidson, and Mt. Sutro?

Is the technology there to grade what would become incredibly high valued land and make it more suitable for development? Or are fire, mudslide, and earthquake too much of a detriment, along with the sheer steep grade of this real estate.

Will this area always be the natural open space between the tightly packed city and valley.....or will real estate pressure and improved building methods make it fill in to be more like the lower landscapes on either side of it?

I don't think they should build in the Santa Monica Mountains, I like them the way they are, besides aren't the Santa Monica Mountains a national park?

If they do continue to built up the SM Mountains. You know those are going to be million dollar homes only. Since that's all you have on the Valley and on the westside. So most of us pretty much won't be able to afford.

Anyhow, edgs25 do you live in LA????

I know that getting the message out how much LA has urbanized and become dense has been a major goal for LA forumers. And you guys are unquestionably right: Los Angeles is a far more dense and urban city today than in the past and people who don't see that haven't been to LA or are living in the past.

The reasons for your urbanization are obvious: a growing population in the city and the metro area are obvious. Equally obvious though is the limitation that elevation places on development; there are some metro LA landscpes that just can't be used for human development.

But there are others that are. Or might be. That whole Hollywood Hills/Santa Monica Mountains region between the city and the valley becomes low density in a city that is relatively dense. Development in this area has always been there in the canyons (Laurel, Coldwater, Bev Glen, etc.), but spotty in other locations.

So here's the question: is LA ready to tackle the Santa Monicas and turn them into a true urban environment, something akin to the way that San Francisco uranized the higher reaches of Twin Peaks, Mt. Davidson, and Mt. Sutro?

Is the technology there to grade what would become incredibly high valued land and make it more suitable for development? Or are fire, mudslide, and earthquake too much of a detriment, along with the sheer steep grade of this real estate.

Will this area always be the natural open space between the tightly packed city and valley.....or will real estate pressure and improved building methods make it fill in to be more like the lower landscapes on either side of it?


An awful lot of this land is reserved as parkland: Santa Monica Nat'l Recreation area, and will never be developed. A better question is the land to be kept as semi-wilderness or at least partially developed into public parkland?

Also will any more roads be put through the area to facilitate travel between the valley and the city?

If they do continue to built up the SM Mountains. You know those are going to be million dollar homes only. Since that's all you have on the Valley and on the westside. So most of us pretty much won't be able to afford.

Anyhow, edgs25 do you live in LA????

native and life-long Chicagoan

Anyhow, edgs25 do you live in LA????

Nah, in cell block 6 thats my cellmate at Metropolitan Correctional Center. We both in Chicago, Downtown to be exact. Yo Edgs where's my shank?

I know that getting the message out how much LA has urbanized and become dense has been a major goal for LA forumers. And you guys are unquestionably right: Los Angeles is a far more dense and urban city today than in the past and people who don't see that haven't been to LA or are living in the past.

The reasons for your urbanization are obvious: a growing population in the city and the metro area are obvious. Equally obvious though is the limitation that elevation places on development; there are some metro LA landscpes that just can't be used for human development.

But there are others that are. Or might be. That whole Hollywood Hills/Santa Monica Mountains region between the city and the valley becomes low density in a city that is relatively dense. Development in this area has always been there in the canyons (Laurel, Coldwater, Bev Glen, etc.), but spotty in other locations.

So here's the question: is LA ready to tackle the Santa Monicas and turn them into a true urban environment, something akin to the way that San Francisco uranized the higher reaches of Twin Peaks, Mt. Davidson, and Mt. Sutro?

Is the technology there to grade what would become incredibly high valued land and make it more suitable for development? Or are fire, mudslide, and earthquake too much of a detriment, along with the sheer steep grade of this real estate.

Will this area always be the natural open space between the tightly packed city and valley.....or will real estate pressure and improved building methods make it fill in to be more like the lower landscapes on either side of it?


Such development was already proposed in the early 80's. Two more north/south freeways were planned along with making Mulholland an 8 lane highway (no joke). This was quashed by existing home owners who didnt want any multi-family units around and "environmentalists" who wanted to protect the Santa Monicas (in fact, these groups were one and the same for the most part). So, don't expect anything significant to happen in the Santa Monicas for quite sometime.

Most of the land is set aside as state parks. I think the federal govt might have a hand in the area also given the presence of one of the old abandoned Nike missle bases. Plus the city has a few acres set aside.

I am most familiar with Topanga Canyon st park, Will Rogers and San Vincente Park via trail running and hiking. All together there are about 25-30K acres of protected wilderness confined within the city limits/metro.

I would be completely against urbanizing it. It's a real QOL assest. It would make as much sense as paving over the Marin Headlands. Plus, it is very rugged terrain. A comparison to Twin Peaks is not accurate. I'm not sure building dense neighborhoods is feasible (at least without some serious geologic remodeling)

the government sold about 300,000 acers of public land about two weeks ago so there might be some of it going away... i forget were the actual sales were made but it does not look good anyhow.

its all in the bush plan for economic recovery thanks to his war

I was always under the impression that the largest percentage of public land in the mountian chain was not in LA proper, but to the west....and understandably sparser area and one not affected by serving as a divsion between city and valley.

I was not suggesting the SM's be developed within LA city limits (comparing them to an area that needs to be preserved for its roughed like the Marin Headlines made sense by one of the previous posters). My point was more: will population pressure tip the scale in favor of development of the SM's witin LA at some point? Let's keep in mind that SF has little reason to want to see the Marin Headlands redeveloped ast LA might need to see the SM's redevelop (plus: Marin is outside of SF city limits anyway).

With no "should" or "shouldn't", will land values and population pressures eventually lead to land grading and development of vast stretches of the SM's?

I was always under the impression that the largest percentage of public land in the mountian chain was not in LA proper, but to the west....and understandably sparser area and one not affected by serving as a divsion between city and valley.

I was not suggesting the SM's be developed within LA city limits (comparing them to an area that needs to be preserved for its roughed like the Marin Headlines made sense by one of the previous posters). My point was more: will population pressure tip the scale in favor of development of the SM's witin LA at some point? Let's keep in mind that SF has little reason to want to see the Marin Headlands redeveloped ast LA might need to see the SM's redevelop (plus: Marin is outside of SF city limits anyway).

With no "should" or "shouldn't", will land values and population pressures eventually lead to land grading and development of vast stretches of the SM's?



The far more likely scenario is that LA will densify and build up as San Francisco has done. I doubt you'll see widescale urbanization of the Santa Monicas before you see a crop of high-rise apartments.

Well the Santa Monica above hollywood are already pretty built up, but mostly with single family homes. These are the famous canyons and the hollywood hlls you hear so much about. THere is less dense development in the Western Santa Monicas that are still within city limits. A lot of the land is held in state parks like Topanga State Park (11,000+ acres, more than twice the size of Grffith park and all within city limits believe it or not).

I think the more likely build up of LA will be in the flats, west, south, and east of downtown. There is a lot of land that could be built up with high density middle/lower middle class housing in these areas that have been pretty much ignored. There is a lot more land to build on in LA than SF. I suspect a lot of the build up will occur near the metro stops. When the yellow line to East LA is complete, I suspect there will be major change in that area very soon.

IT WILL BE HARD TO ROOT UP AND TEAR DOWN CURRENT SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS. WHAT WE WILL DO IS TEAR UP STRIPMALLS AND ONE-STORY RETAIL AND BUILD SKYSCRAPERS ALONG ALL MAJOR BOULEVARDS. WE COULD PROBABLY ADD ENOUGH HOUSING UNITS TO ADD 2-3 MILLION MORE PEOPLE WITH THAT ALONE.

WE COULD ALSO DECLARE IMMENENT DOMAIN ON ALL BLIGHTED NEIGHBORHOODS, TEAR THEM UP AND BUILD HUNDREDS OF SKYSCRAPERS. IT WILL BE TOUGH TO EVER CHANGE THE LOOK OF BEL AIR, BRENTWOOD, HANCOCK PARK. THOSE WILL FOREVER BE MOSTLY SINGLE FAMILY HOME PLACES WITH SOME EXCEPTIONS.

NO NEED TO RUIN NATURAL PRESERVE

ISNT SF MOSTLY VICTORIAN HOUSES AND OTHER 2-4 STORY MULTIFAMILY UNITS? HAVE THEY REALLY BUILT UP?

ISNT SF MOSTLY VICTORIAN HOUSES AND OTHER 2-4 STORY MULTIFAMILY UNITS? HAVE THEY REALLY BUILT UP?

No, SF hasn't built up at all...Los Angeles is way more built up.

Oh yeah, and we should definatly tear down the blighted neighborhoods, THATS A GOOD IDEA

No, SF hasn't built up at all...Los Angeles is way more built up.

Oh yeah, and we should definatly tear down the blighted neighborhoods, THATS A GOOD IDEA

You might think LA is more built up. I don't.

San Francisco has neigborhoods with people packed into 2-4 story buildings (pacific heights, ashbury district, nob hill, little italy area). What neighborhood of SF is covered with apartment skyscrapers?

How can we build up if we don't tear down?

Nah, in cell block 6 thats my cellmate at Metropolitan Correctional Center. We both in Chicago, Downtown to be exact. Yo Edgs where's my shank?

So when you ask edsg25 "where's my shank" are you guys like good cellmate's????

Wow edgs25 your a bad boy!!!!

[QUOTE=Westheangelino]Such development was already proposed in the early 80's. Two more north/south freeways were planned along with making Mulholland an 8 lane highway (no joke).

Music to my ears..... how do we get this idea back on overdrive. 8 lanes..... :drool:

8 Lanes!!!??? holy crap. That would cut down traffic reaaaalll good!

No, SF hasn't built up at all...Los Angeles is way more built up.

Oh yeah, and we should definatly tear down the blighted neighborhoods, THATS A GOOD IDEA

The misleading factor about LA is that of its claimed 465 sq miles, that includes national parks and rugged mountains. These places are uninhabitable either by law or by logic. San Fran granted is considered the densest city after New York, although it is factual, it is misleading.

Do you think SF will grow denser or is it completely built up. When the chinese take over they might turn it into Hongkong packed with skyscrapers.

Do you think SF will grow denser or is it completely built up. When the chinese take over they might turn it into Hongkong packed with skyscrapers.

THAT"S A VERY 1970s/1980s way of thinking. CHINESE ARE NOT TAKING SF OVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!

SF IS DIVERSE MELTING COASTAL POT :) :) :)

the government sold about 300,000 acers of public land about two weeks ago so there might be some of it going away... i forget were the actual sales were made but it does not look good anyhow.

its all in the bush plan for economic recovery thanks to his war


fortunatley, that sale has not been approved by congress yet and is very doubtful to be approved. Bush's bullshit will not be tolerated anymore and his all out assult on the enviornment is embarrassing, all of it to satisfy his big business and oil buddies. fuck you george W. Bush, i hope you rot in hell.

Anyways, back to the topic, that area will never be developed as it is a preserve and there would be very severe backlash and opposition to any major development plans in that area.

Hey while there at it maybe they can mow down griffith park and put up even more houses and parking lots. God bless our wonderful president

Hey while there at it maybe they can mow down griffith park and put up even more houses and parking lots. God bless our wonderful president


AND how about the Catalina's. We can dump our trash in the ocean until they are connected to PV by a land-trash bridge and then we can pave them too. :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash:

hmm... i really doubt these mountains would be touched by developments in any major way... LA is so big! we still got a lotta places to redevelop/improve! if u look at places like Palms and Culver City, there're a lotta crappy apt buildings in between the newer nicer ones... once they run outta stripmalls sites along the main roads like SilverLake suggested above, they're gonna start buying those old buildings for redevelopment like wht's happeneing in Westwood Villlage and Westwood So of Wilshire... THEN u got the entire east LA and Highland park/lincoln park area, where resistence to redevelopment will b little and weak, mainly coz they're poor and immigrants :-( it's gonna take a long time b4 they REALLY run outta land... even assuming that all single family residence neighborhoods are untouched (which is very unlikely, since there're a lotta crappy neighborhoods imme. west of dt before la brea/ktown)

The Santa Monicas does not need to be urbanized though I would like to see more hiking trails in the area :D

One problem with this land is that it is already worth so much that all that can be built on it are more trophy homes.

http://www.latimes.com/media/photo/2006-02/22123714.jpg

Striving to Save an Iconic View
L.A. officials want to protect acreage near the Hollywood sign from Chicago developers.
By Bob Pool, Times Staff Writer
February 24 2006


Los Angeles officials and environmentalists have launched a concerted effort to preserve the iconic view of the Hollywood sign by purchasing a mountaintop above it where developers want to build luxury homes.

City officials fear development of a peak just to the west of the "H" in the sign would encroach on the postcard-like scene.

The 1,820-foot Cahuenga Peak is where Howard Hughes once planned to build a love nest for actress Ginger Rogers.

But a group of Chicago investors who four years ago purchased the land from Hughes' estate are eyeing the 138 acres of the ridge as a place to nestle in five luxury estates.

That has prompted a hasty campaign by city leaders and conservationists to raise $6 million they think they need to buy back Cahuenga Peak and turn it into an extension of nearby Griffith Park.

So far they have amassed $3.1 million from various sources.

Representatives for the Chicago owners said Thursday that they are "open" to a bid from the city, though the investors are preparing to draw up their own development plans. They said previous talks with the city about the mountaintop fell apart. No current asking price has been set.

From its top, a spectacular 360-degree panorama of the Los Angeles Basin and the San Fernando Valley unfolds for hikers who manage to climb the road-less peak just east of the Cahuenga Pass.

Though building homes on the rugged mountain would be a challenge, officials said they were concerned about the peak's future because of the boom in recent years of luxury home construction across even the steepest areas of the Hollywood Hills.

"With modern engineering techniques, there's no such thing as an un-buildable lot," said Hollywood-area City Councilman Tom LaBonge, who is leading the campaign to buy the peak.

"It's been sitting there for a long time. We kind of forgot about it. I was as surprised as anybody to find out we didn't already own that parcel. It looks like we do, but we don't."

Authorities say that Hughes, the aircraft builder turned filmmaker, acquired the land in the 1930s. That's when he drove Rogers up the mountainside and pledged to construct her a house there.

"He said, 'Sweetheart, see the city below you? I'm going to build a house here for you,' " said Rad Sutnar, a consultant working for the landowners who has studied the site's history.

In a 1991 television interview, Rogers mentioned Hughes' house plans as a reason she never married the eccentric tycoon.

"I knew what he wanted from me. He wanted to take me and lock me up in a hilltop house and never let me see anyone," Rogers said.

"That's exactly what he did to [actress] Jean Peters. He locked her up. I could tell how resentful he was of anyone coming close to us in conversation."

Hughes' relationship with Rogers didn't last. But the property remained in the Hughes trust for decades.

The investors, working through a partnership called Fox River Land Co., purchased Cahuenga Peak from Howard Hughes Properties Ltd. in 2002 for $1,675,000, according to Los Angeles County property records.

A year later, the investors divided their holdings into five pieces under a partnership called Hollywood Hills LLC.

None of the group's three primary investors could be reached for comment Thursday.

"The partners divided up the parcel, and each one took a piece," Sutnar said. "One wants to build a house. Each one is on his own trying to figure out what to do with it."

City leaders say residential development of the rugged mountaintop could be difficult, but is far from impossible.

Some of the individual parcels are landlocked, although public roadways connect with several sides of the property, which spans all sides of the peak.

They say the peak has the potential to accommodate a TV, radio or cellphone broadcast tower as well as homes.

The first time he jogged in the area 30 years ago, Chris Schwab, who has lived on Hollyridge Drive since 1965, said he was puzzled to find the peak fenced off.

"I didn't find out until last year that it was privately owned, that a Chicago company had bought it," said Schwab, a retired consulting engineer.

"It would be a crime to have buildings up there. It ought to be part of Griffith Park. They should get their few million dollars' profit and then get out and go home to Chicago."

Added David Schulner, a TV writer who has lived near it for three years: "It's a landmark — if not legally, then in the eyes of the universe. The fact that something so public can be privatized is deeply saddening."

On Thursday, proponents of the peak purchase appealed to a committee that is helping oversee the allocation of $1.5 million in acquisition funds made possible through 1996's voter-approved Proposition K.

"This is an emergency situation. This is preserving a piece of park forever. If we let it go now, it will be lost forever," said Richard Bogy, president of the Toluca Lake Chamber of Commerce.

Officials said City Hall has received hundreds of letters pleading for the peak's protection.

"Our children and our children's children deserve a Los Angeles that is not only mini-malls and high-rises," wrote North Hollywood film producer Tim Allen.

Louis Alvarado, a member of the bond allocation committee, said he agreed.

"I don't want to be responsible for a 10,000-square-foot house behind the Hollywood sign," he said. "We will not get a second chance."

When they think they have enough cash, city leaders intend to ask the nonprofit Trust for Public Land to negotiate with the property owners.

If a deal is reached, the trust will donate the land to the city as an expansion of Griffith Park.

Larry Kaplan, Los Angeles-area director of the trust, said no recent appraisal of the acreage has been made.

"If you had to pick a ballpark figure, $6 million is about right," he said.

The most recent appraisal about a year ago placed its value at $4,270,000.

The sale would leave the Chicago owners with a handsome profit.

But officials stressed that the public money can be used to buy the peak only if an appraisal finds that the asking price is fair.