http://www.latimes.com/classified/realestate/news/la-re-crisis4jun04,1,2540178.story

What kind of city do we really want to live in? One of childless couples, largely white and affluent? Or a mix of both ethnic and class strata? If the trend continues the inner core will end up being another San Francisco or Lower Manhattan. Along with the school building initiative shouldn't their be an affordable housing initiative as well? The only people that send their kids to public schools anymore are the working and struggling classes. If I can buy a condo in EVO, I highly doubt I'd be sending my child to an overcrowded public school in South LA or Pico-union. If we want density, we need families, right? DINKS*=Low density. Basically, we need to build projects. So what do you'll think?

*DINKS-Double Income No Kids

:cry: Being a partnered gay man I guess I am destined to always be a considered a DINK to wherever I move. Especially since I have no desire to have children. A strain on the density movement shuned by fellow forumers. :goodbye:

The new downtown is in no way a white enclave. Come on down and look around without your blinders on and you will see that what I am saying is true. Affluent, yes, but the crowds are ethnically mixed. That is one of the reasons people are coming here, to leave suburban attitudes behind.

The Grand Avenue Project wil be 20% affordable housing. That is only one project of many, as we all know. Services for the poor are a major industry in Downtown so that will not be changing either.

I would like to suggest that your tendency to see racism everywhere is part of the problem, not part of the solution.

They can give delvelopers tax incentives, to provide affordeble units, but the last thing we need is more subsideised housing for illegal aliens!

I would like to suggest that your tendency to see racism everywhere is part of the problem, not part of the solution.

It's quite difficult not to bring up race or class when talking about gentrification. From Webster's:

Main Entry: gen·tri·fi·ca·tion
Pronunciation: "jen-tr&-f&-'kA-sh&n
Function: noun
: the process of renewal and rebuilding accompanying the influx of middle-class or affluent people into deteriorating areas that often displaces earlier usually poorer residents

...i just want to have enough parking spots for my cars

The most practical way to drop the cost of housing is to increase supply. Since we have basically run out of buildable land in the LA metro, the last thing we need to do is to tie developers hands by insisting on social welfare projects. Robert Taylor homes, Cabrini Green, Pruit Igoe, and Nickerson gardens have failed to produce decent living areas for the poor. Its foolish to try repeating the same old experiment and hoping for a different result. If we want the kind of city you are talking about, we need to increase housing suppy by building more densely, and to create a base of decent manufacturing jobs that pay a livable wage.

The most practical way to drop the cost of housing is to increase supply. Since we have basically run out of buildable land in the LA metro, the last thing we need to do is to tie developers hands by insisting on social welfare projects. Robert Taylor homes, Cabrini Green, Pruit Igoe, and Nickerson gardens have failed to produce decent living areas for the poor. Its foolish to try repeating the same old experiment and hoping for a different result. If we want the kind of city you are talking about, we need to increase housing suppy by building more densely, and to create a base of decent manufacturing jobs that pay a livable wage.


Exactly.

But how are we going to pay a livable wage in the manufacturing sector( I include the labor sector and service industry as well) if supply outpaces demand? Here's the scenario. X is a construction worker and part of a union. X demands a certain livable wage including benefits. Over time many Ys comes along and not only undercut X's salary by willing to work for less but Y doesn't even demand full benefits, if any. The employer of X really likes this situation seeing that he can make more in profit and lessen his overhead. Problem: Y cannot afford the housing in the city seeing that Y earns much less than X. To further complicate the issue the employer is given no incentive to raise Y's wages or offer benefits either. Y has to move out of the city he cannot afford to a more affordable area. Although Y would like to make more money, Y is from another country is here without proper documentation and knows that he is making 100% more money than he was back home. He is also smart enough to not make a fuss. How do you get the employer to pay Y a living wage, enough to afford the ever pricier city? What incentive is their for an employer to pay a living wage when supply overwhelms demand?

^ That's the reason all the Y have moved to others inland communities and/or States. To me this is Employer greed and Unions who don't step up to the plate and make a big fuzzzzzzzzzzz!!!

But how are we going to pay a livable wage in the manufacturing sector( I include the labor sector and service industry as well) if supply outpaces demand? Here's the scenario. X is a construction worker and part of a union. X demands a certain livable wage including benefits. Over time many Ys comes along and not only undercut X's salary by willing to work for less but Y doesn't even demand full benefits, if any. The employer of X really likes this situation seeing that he can make more in profit and lessen his overhead. Problem: Y cannot afford the housing in the city seeing that Y earns much less than X. To further complicate the issue the employer is given no incentive to raise Y's wages or offer benefits either. Y has to move out of the city he cannot afford to a more affordable area. Although Y would like to make more money, Y is from another country is here without proper documentation and knows that he is making 100% more money than he was back home. He is also smart enough to not make a fuss. How do you get the employer to pay Y a living wage, enough to afford the ever pricier city? What incentive is their for an employer to pay a living wage when supply overwhelms demand?

We can start by raising the minimum wage nationally and enforcing employers to check for legal residency. If Y cannot afford to live in the city at subsistence wages, he will not be around to undercut the other workers. Construction work still pays pretty well. Any city that has enforced strict building limits (Aspen, for example) will see property costs skyrocket. The problem you speak of is extremely complex and difficult to solve in a world of out sourcing. But building more vertical slums is not the answer. As housing is built it should be designed so that each building will house people from all socioeconomic levels of society.

As housing is built it should be designed so that each building will house people from all socioeconomic levels of society.

Cool den! That I can work with. But the % given to affordable housing has to become a countywide or at least citywide absolute!! requirement. And hopefully it can be at least in the 20-30% range.

So when they say % of the apartments are affordable, what do they really mean by that???

I always feel screwed because I make over 14,000 and less than 75,000. So I don't qualify for so many programs but yet I really can't afford a 700,000 home/condo in LA. Then of course I am not eligible for food stamps, fee waiver, school grants, section 8, medical and many other services that are free out there. So many in the similar situation have to rent a 1 bedroom apartment (OK) nothing luxurious off course. Or are forced to find roomies or get a significant other to move in and help with the expenses although you don't want nothing to do with that person. You also Have to find ways to manage your money and always live on a budget. So you see those people are the ones who should get the % of apartments for moderate income families and/or individuals. People who pull their own weight and don't expect a bone to be thrown every month......

:cry: Being a partnered gay man I guess I am destined to always be a considered a DINK to wherever I move. Especially since I have no desire to have children. A strain on the density movement shuned by fellow forumers. :goodbye:

Well I guess "Fran" you could always adopt. Heteros have always made more babies than they've actually wanted. Btw, did you get down to Pride this weekend?

Wasn't there a $1 billion public housing bond that our dear Mayor was proposing? What happened to that? The LA city council also recently placed a 1-year moratorium on condo conversions for existing SRO's in dowtown LA, which obviously most developers didn't go for. The main problem I think (correct me if I'm wrong) is that LA never had a comprehensive inclusionary housing program in the inner city unlike San Francisco, Chicago or San Diego. There are developers who are willing to finance and build these kinds of projects.

I was looking at this thread from SSP and I figured, couldn't we build hi-rises close to our freeways (other than the ones in LA's downtown core of course) quite similar to the Tokyo photos below taken by "initiald" at SSP (Take note of the ribbons of elevated highways, reminds me of the 110/10 interchange or the 4-level downtown). Now that's density!!:

http://i.pbase.com/o4/09/580409/1/61787862.8484CePU.Ropongi100_0632800x600.jpg
http://i.pbase.com/o4/09/580409/1/61787863.zjjBprng.Ropongi100_0633800x600.jpg
http://i.pbase.com/o4/09/580409/1/61787882.oxFhZH03.Ropongi100_0646800x600.jpg
http://i.pbase.com/o4/09/580409/1/61787888.Zgolj5np.Ropongi100_0649800x600.jpg

I think all areas next to a freeway, at least a block or two, should be re-zoned for hi-rises. It is more aesthetically pleasing and within scale. The scale of downtown LA buildings close to the 110 comes to mind. Just imagine, a group of hi-rises at the 110/105 junction! You have the best view!

[QUOTE=archd1]
http://i.pbase.com/o4/09/580409/1/61787888.Zgolj5np.Ropongi100_0649800x600.jpg
[SIZE=3]

^ I am really digging this pix!!!!!

Building next to highways is a bad idea. The exhaust creates all types of problems from asthma to cancer to Lord knows what else.

Couldn't you just keep your windows closed?

and dont the buildings have filters on the air they bring in?

And if it's a big problem, they could simply just move to Oregon. Since the air is a whole lot better up there! So let's built the bitches.... Yay!!!!

Couldn't you just keep your windows closed?

If it only was that simple. Asthma, respiratory illness, cancer rates are all significantly higher, some to the tune of 300%.

The Grand Avenue Project wil be 20% affordable housing.

The definition of affordable housing in Los Angeles is a joke. We have 2 bedroom units going for $2K being labeled affordable, because it's a unit that could be going for $3.5K. Forget the fact that housing is only supposed to be less than one-third of your income, meaning the unit is only affordable to people making a minimum of $70K/year.

you know some people do live with someone who splits the payments / rent with them

^ Not exactly sure what that has to do with the definition of "affordable housing" as it pertains to a city where the median household income is less than $45K.

Forgive me maybe I should have put it differently: "below market-rate" does not affordable housing make.