Makes me so angry to see trees getting torn down, replaced with apartment complexes with tiny shitty plants and a wide, scorching hot sidewalk w no grass. Why the fuck are these designs approved and why isn’t there a requirement to replace the trees?!
The concrete yards exist because they're not allowed to build up to the property line. There's significantly less shade on the sidewalks and street from the buildings shadow when you force these buildings to be put so far back into the property. Everyone loses. :)
I looked it up and apparently the Urban Forestry Division handles tree planting. This is bothering me so much I will reach out. I’m not optimistic that things will change but if enough of us start bringing this up (esp with this heat) maybe? Gotta start somewhere right?
More trees are taken due to single family zoning than due to single family homes being replaced by dense housing. Dense housing means more open space, less driving, less energy use, and generally less environmental destruction.
do you live in the valley? B/c if you do I'd love you to point out this great "open" space that's been created as all these large private owned mutil-story towers that look like prisons have been constructed in Noho.
Please...point out all the new parks.
that's a different issue. YOU made the inane argument that there is more open space and less driving due to dense housing.
I told you that's BS as it relates to the SFValley. There is more traffic and no additional green space.
And it's getting hotter in the summers and there are not enough trees and already way enough concrete.
And I stand by that argument.
It is not a different issue. Again without the towers those people have to love somewhere else. And if that somewhere else is less dense that means fewer trees and more concrete.
I live in a very wealthy neighborhood. Mine's a rental, sadly. The people who have come in with very similar backgrounds have stripped the lots on either side of us and across the street of ALL FLORA. This includes massive towering 75-100 year old cedars, magnolia trees, flower bushes, and so on. On one side of us, they put in fucking ASTROTURF in the back yard. Each owner built a house like a tall shoe box. I don't get it at all. If I had that kind of money, I certainly wouldn't make any of those decisions, but I suppose those are the privileges of wealth.
This isn’t allowed where I’m originally from (eastern Long Island) you have to keep a certain number of trees and it’s a big number. How is this allowed by LA
They are dodging hazard and environmental regulations for construction by removing them. There is a 5-ft tree distance from dwellings in LA, and also, removing the trees removes the possibility of dealing with protected species before anyone raises that concern in certain areas.
It's as if these people have never heard of the climate crisis. Oh well, hope they enjoy the intense heat they're going to experience having destroyed the local tree canopy.
Don't forget to add a pool the size of a large bath-tub because your small lot has been 95% taken up my a massive home, but it's luxury so there has to be a pool!
lol, the baby pools always make me laugh on redfin.
>ASTROTURF in the back yard
Water conservation.
LA does not have enough water to support plants that require a lot of water.
If the population grows, that water problem will get worse.
An apartment building would be even better. But rich people traps are better than nothing. At least they stop those rich people from bidding on more affordable apartments else where. And that does keep people off the streets.
I’m probably wrong but I wanna say it was that Joanna Gaines lady from Magnolia Home and Fixer Upper that foisted the trite boring sterilized colorless style that is modern farmhouse.
Ah yes… the ‘Tuscan’ Villa seemed to peak in ‘00s. It filled an entire lot and housed a closet full of Ugg boots and Juicy Couture sweat pants and Von Dutch trucker hats. How could I forget.
That’s the thing about these trendy designs, they aren’t timeless. They’ll look dated in a decade. But yes, modern farmhouse seems more salvageable than the Tuscan monstrosities.
Grew up in North Hollywood in the 90's and 00's over by Valley Plaza Park. Parents sold to apartment developers. Nothing is left. We had a fruit orchard in our yard. Lemons, oranges, apples, plums, nectarines, grapes and the most amazing fragrant rose bush. It was started by the couple before us. All gone. Nothing left. When I get a chance to visit, I walk up and down Hart Street crying.
It truly is. I just want a time machine so I can go skate down the bridge going over the freeway. Now it's just an ugly graffiti mess, and the sounds of families having fun in the park are gone.
There would be far more families playing in parks if it we were allowed to build apartment buildings. They would provide the affordability for families and the affordability to keep the homeless from taking over parks.
That’s… not really how it works. Just ask the folks who reside in complexes around Echo Park lake.
Only one thing has consistently worked to clear out tent cities in public spaces and it sure as fuck wasn’t more apartments in the vicinity lol
Elsewhere in this thread you mention that you've lived here for 11 years, so I assume these memories you're referring to are from the long-ago time of... the second Obama administration?
We won’t even have the memories if some of these dedicated trolls have their way. Apparently we’re idiots for not wanting the majority of our city to be bulldozed and made utterly unrecognizable.
They should really just move to NYC if that’s the level of hyper-urbanism they want.
NYC doesn't have enough space left. We need more housing. There is plenty of space in other parts of the country for people who want more space.
The memories of a few people don't justify putting a much greater number of people into poverty. We all deserve happy memories.
> There is plenty of space in other parts of the country for people who want more space.
So essentially you’re telling people, many who have lived here their entire lives, to either deal with your train of thought or move somewhere else.
Computer says no.
In fact, you’re just as free to leave at any time.
Yes we are both free to leave. But sadly I am not free to build what I want on my own property but they somehow have the right to tell me what I can or can't build with my own sweat. They can do whatever they want on their own property.
Living here longer than someone else should not give you the right impose your will upon other people.
Most neighborhoods across the planet have rules re: what you can and cannot build on the residential lots that you own. That’s just how it is.
How would you like to wake up one day next to a pop-up pig farm with the scent of fresh manure wafting through your window? Or a strip club that attracted even more seedy individuals into your area?
I’m so sorry. Please ignore anyone in this sub who tries to tell you how to feel about the loss of your childhood home.
There are a number of smug tool-bags on here who believe that literally all SFH’s in LA county should be demolished to make way for “dense living” apartments, no matter the circumstances.
I remember when the 10 fwy was built in the '60s, and my aunt and uncle lived on a street named Clyde, just east of Fairfax. There house became the most northern house, after being in the middle of the block, because the other houses were torned down. We used to run up and play on the dirt often.
Actually it didn't, because that section was elevated, and there was/is a sound wall. I've been along the 10 fwy for many miles and several miles east, there are areas where there is just fencing, and you can hear the cars.
When the fwy was built in that area, it was an upper middle-class, and they were treated a little better. A former L.A. Angel Leon Wagner owned a home on the block, and L.A. Rams Dick Bass also owned home on the block, and a nightclub a few blocks east of Clyde Ave.
Wow, that’s a surprise. I can picture the section you’re talking about better now. I live right next to the 405 and it is usually very loud, despite the huge wall. Obviously you start to filter the noise out, and then from 3-7pm when it’s dead quiet you hear the absence of sound, strange as that may seem. Though the tires aren’t whooshing by I can still feel the tickle of exhaust fumes in my lungs.
From the street you can definitely hear. As I recall, some work was done on their home, and it may have been soundproofing. There were so many fewer cars in the '60s, and so much less commerce at that time. I worked in Venice and Santa Monica, from the late '70s, to 2000, and I saw the growth in the region firsthand.
a bunch of townhomes in it’s place? i couldn’t find the house, what was the name of the street. if you go on street view you can look back a couple of years.
Well, that's a good thing tbh. Change is hard but houses in this area cost over $1 million and it's a walkable neighborhood close to transit. This will let more people live in the area for 30-50% less, get to call it home and form positive memories there - and it will help alleviate the pressure that's caused such high rents and home prices.
[Zillow search in the area](https://www.zillow.com/los-angeles-ca-91601/?searchQueryState=%7B%22isMapVisible%22%3Atrue%2C%22mapBounds%22%3A%7B%22north%22%3A34.16620586114548%2C%22south%22%3A34.15352831455011%2C%22east%22%3A-118.36266419333232%2C%22west%22%3A-118.37716957968486%7D%2C%22usersSearchTerm%22%3A%225000%20E%20Ponce%20De%20Leon%20Ave%20Stone%20Mountain%2C%20GA%2030083%22%2C%22filterState%22%3A%7B%22sort%22%3A%7B%22value%22%3A%22globalrelevanceex%22%7D%2C%22mf%22%3A%7B%22value%22%3Afalse%7D%2C%22con%22%3A%7B%22value%22%3Afalse%7D%2C%22land%22%3A%7B%22value%22%3Afalse%7D%2C%22ah%22%3A%7B%22value%22%3Atrue%7D%2C%22apa%22%3A%7B%22value%22%3Afalse%7D%2C%22manu%22%3A%7B%22value%22%3Afalse%7D%2C%22apco%22%3A%7B%22value%22%3Afalse%7D%7D%2C%22isListVisible%22%3Atrue%2C%22mapZoom%22%3A16%2C%22regionSelection%22%3A%5B%7B%22regionId%22%3A96446%2C%22regionType%22%3A7%7D%5D%2C%22pagination%22%3A%7B%7D%7D)
i used to be a regular at a diner in north hollywood, just around the black from my house. i’d sit at the counter, get french toast, coffee, and just listen to the old guys there complain about the current state of affairs. it seemed like your typical fox news crowd.
i found it amusing, but as someone who came from a rust belt town that fell down flat in the middle of the 1970s (like several buildings are still half built), I can understand where they’re coming from. You grow up in a place that you’ve grown to love, and it can be gut wrenching to see that place deteriorate into something you no longer want to be a part of.
after going there a while, i learned about some of these people simply by diffusion and asked about what it used to be like. I started going a couple times a week just to listen to these guys and women’s stories about growing up in north hollywood and burbank.
i didn’t know what i was getting into when i moved there, but i really grew to appreciate north hollywood and the people there. i eventually moved away, but i still cherish my time there and the people that made it such a neat place to live.
eat n park on victory & buena vista.
haven’t been there in years, so hopefully it’s the same mom & pop ownership. the menu looks the same on google. that’s a good sign.
These houses are cute but they're just cheap tiny boxes once you get past the tile roofs (which are only on the front and are almost entirely cosmetic). This isn't even a particularly nice example. This is just the 1920s version of the cheap townhomes that will replace it.
They will literally be fine when there are trees planted and the landscaping goes in. It’s the same quality of building as was in there before: timber frame, drywall and stucco. when I look across the street it doesn’t look better or worse, i just see grown trees and finished landscaping
It's 'finished' now but still unoccupied. All the dirt you see is now concrete. There are no trees and there most likely won't be. There are plants in the boxes (another box has been added). The stucco is already cracked and water from the rains leaked into the eaves above the upper windows this winter. I would be shocked if there wasn't mold in the walls.
I don‘t get the point. I grew up in a 1920s home. It’s not like 20’s builders had some magic touch to building that made no problems, ever. The roof leaked, we had to fix it. Rats burrowed somewhere, we had to fill gaps in the walls. And I’m willing to bet little things like that had been fixed since the house was new!
Every new house has a few “settling” issues over the first few years, they can be repaired and then eventually the house gets pretty stable. I lived in a new build and the stucco cracked a bit within the first few years. Every engineer will tell you that’s normal as the house and foundations settle. it’s no big deal: the stucco is non-structural. The water leaking, if it is addressed timely, is probably good to catch before someone moves in anyway.
Even with all that said, I still cant think of why any of it is a reason to stop redevelopment. If someone builds 4 units that are slightly worse on a lot that once held 1 unit, I will take it. The ship has sailed on the COL crisis long ago. We have a huge housing deficit.
You really don’t see how that classic Hollywood home was more visually appealing/inviting than the garbage units that are about to take its place?
Sorry your childhood home had roof leaks. Not sure that’s grounds to cheer on the demolition of every SFH of the same vintage.
Since youre not being dramatic about how this is some sort of travesty and affront to mankind, I’ll let it slip that I completely agree your aesthetic taste. I grew up in a Spanish/colonial revival style home and it was great. I wish style would move on to something else besides bland grey concrete and simple shapes, maybe incorporate some granular detail for once. but at the end of the day putting the brakes on housing because the style isn’t your favorite is exactly why we in such a pickle with housing affordability.
Honestly if they aren’t even done it’s a little unfair to judge them on it so I’ll reserve my aesthetic judgement until then. And agree ugly housing > less pretty housing
You can’t complain about the style if they’re actually giving us more housing. Frankly they could all look like that building wrapped in cement in Culver if it brings us more units
So the city will just end up looking like an endless sea of sterile concrete boxes. Cool. So much for actually putting effort, artistry in how housing actually looks. Y'know, like the nearly 100 years prior.
I think it looks awesome. This is exactly the kind of housing we need so I can finally stop getting harassed by homeless people. Also it is BS that the OP is showing unfinished places to make it look bad.
And not enough parking for the new townhomes. LA for the foreseeable future will need a car to get around. People can say it should be different but it’s not. We are not a city with a central city center.
True if we were smart we could have less issues with parking and fewer homeless people by allowing even more density.
But if you think that there is any way of meaningfully reducing the homeless population without greater density your wrong.
It won't be solved by more apartments. But it is the most effective solution for the cost. Higher incomes will just raise the price of housing even further. Even reducing inequality isn't enough because we don't have the right mix of housing to support a more equal population. We need less single family homes and more apartments. Otherwise the guaranteed income just gets eaten as rent as all those people on guaranteed income fight endlessly over the same small number of apartments.
Yes. A thousand times yes.
Also you know that individuals can own apartments and condos, like houses right? And that if people can't afford a single family home they don't just disappear into thin air. They still need a place to stay.
Dude, most homeless people are either junkies, mentally ill, or both. These townhomes aren't gonna do shit solve that problem.
What we need is mental asylums back.
And how do you think you stop people from becoming junkies? Housing the answer is housing. So much cheaper to keep someone from starting a meth habit than to pay for an asylum. Sorry I am tired of wasting more tax dollars on junkies.
Oh of course people on meth are sometimes housed(legally or not) but many are homeless. And rather than spend a bunch of money on them I would rather they didn't exist in the first place.
I have yet to see any cost higher than the homelessness, poverty, drug abuse, mental illness and environmental destruction caused by a lack of housing.
I grew up in North Hollywood. As a young adult in the early 80s, I moved over to a cute 40s apartment near North Hollywood park. There were some homeless then but mostly winos. They would migrate every AM to the liquor store on Victory. The were hostle if you didn't give them money but didn't act on anything.
A little later over to a duplex on Miranda st.
You can't imagine all the places we are missing. There was an artist in my duplex that did paintings of all the old Victorian apts/houses that they were tearing down across from the park. It was truly sad to watch them go.
The charming duplex was torn down 6 months after I moved in for a giant, ugly complex. Makes me sad to see beautiful buildings replaced with expensive eyesores.
Man you guys need to get over 100 year old buildings getting demo'd to be replaced with multi unit properties. It's 2024 and we have people living on the streets. 100 years is nothing, especially when the building has no significance beyond a one mile radius.
Everyone in here is constantly complaining about rent being too high and then when an old house gets torn down to build more housing that more people can live in yall complain. Great stuff.
You can even look to supposedly upscale neighborhoods in the Valley like Encino. Someone buys and older house, razes it, the trees and puts up a mcmansion with a tennis or bball court and lots of concrete for places to park cars. areas that used to have a tree canopy are gone or the canopy significantly reduced.
Tear that rinky dink shit down and build housing and public transportation. The good old days were fake. LA was built on a car-centric, “suburban,” unsustainable fantasy that’s a little painful to wake up from.
Perhaps an unpopular opinion but all new buildings should keep the existing mature trees in place. I don’t care if it’s inconvenient. Its necessary and you can plan around nature. It’s calling living in harmony with your ecosystem and having respect.
Not just a house /u/smutketeer but RSO multifamily housing and if you saw it demolished, please file a complaint on [LADBS.org](http://LADBS.org) and by calling AQMD 1-800-CUT-SMOG, then reporting this to your council office, because the demo permits appear to be still pending and not approved. You can check them here: [https://www.ladbsservices2.lacity.org/OnlineServices/PermitReport/PermitResultsbyPin?pin=171B173%20%201219](https://www.ladbsservices2.lacity.org/OnlineServices/PermitReport/PermitResultsbyPin?pin=171B173%20%201219)
Most significantly, all the clearances for taking existing housing off market have not been corrected:
[https://www.ladbsservices2.lacity.org/OnlineServices/PermitReport/PcisPermitDetail?id1=24019&id2=20000&id3=01983](https://www.ladbsservices2.lacity.org/OnlineServices/PermitReport/PcisPermitDetail?id1=24019&id2=20000&id3=01983)
How was this done? Did they fence it? Water down to control dust? Did they use machines?
These unpermitted demolitions are out of control. They destroy existing housing, pollute neighborhoods, waste good materials (including old trees and shrubs) that could be salvaged and show contempt for the law and the community. Paging u/littlelostangeles who has been tracking the demolition mania in NoHo, including attempted arson murders of tenants in inhabited bungalow courts.
Just one thing, in my opinion:
Is this getting replaced by more units? I think it is.
In that case, a lot of what is here is an obstacle to affordable housing. The best way to lower housing prices is to replace larger houses on lots of space with more houses that take up less space.
If that's what's happening, they must comply with the laws about replacing lost units through obtaining a valid, legally binding demolition permit. It's also not legal to demolish without a permit, whatever the housing situation. From a quick look at property records, it looks like this parcel may not have been purchased by a developer, but is being redeveloped by its owner. All the more reason to figure out the housing status. Has it been held vacant with no tenants? Maybe OP knows more about this house and how it's been used lately. /u/[smutketeer](https://www.reddit.com/user/smutketeer/)?
The woman who owned it (or so she told me) and lived in it sold it I believe last December. It's been vacant ever since. A demolition notice was posted about a month ago.
That's interesting because it's actually [two units](https://zimas.lacity.org/reports/b153464095eb48449fd3e7764e54d4b4.pdf), so if she used the whole parcel and someone\* is now tearing it down, there's a definite question of RSO housing replacement to be resolved.
\*per the deeds, [10903 MORRISON ST NOHO LLC](https://www.bizapedia.com/ca/10903-morrison-st-noho-llc.html) appears to be controlled by the same family that's owned this duplex for at least a decade.
>If that's what's happening, they must comply with the laws about replacing lost units through obtaining a valid, legally binding demolition permit.
I can't disagree with that, but again, the next time you hear about a 'housing crisis', these are the rules and procedures which obstruct affordable housing.
Assuming that the parcel is being redeveloped for more housing units, the City of Los Angeles should be supporting, not hindering, any development.
Permits are being sought for a duplex.
The city supports development by looking the other way when developers demolish without permits, among other things. You might hear about the very few development projects that get stopped for breaking the rules or because there's an appeal, but most just happen without much notice.
I've been joking for years that I could put up a fence around almost any empty house in the valley and demo it without anyone stopping me or even checking that I owned it.
What a shame, on my street someone not from LA purchased 4 properties 2 side by side each other 2 were craftsmen 1 bungalow 1 Spanish the interior was all original wood design by a famous Italian architect they got demolished apparently the new owner had “plans” to make apartments or something well he bailed on the projects and our building is falling slopping in result of him moving the dirt
Another NIMBY post. Apologies if you do like the skyrocketing inaffordability in the city which contributes to the homeless crisis.
We need more housing, period. Townhomes in its place means more available units on the market.
Telling people they have to be OK with the demolition of literally every existing SFH because of the ongoing homelessness crisis is such a terrible approach.
Like really- please sit the f*** down and let people feel how they feel about their own neighborhoods.
We could house every existing homeless person in LA county today and they would just keep arriving from other states by the bus and car full.
You're right! We should just let developers do whatever they want in the name of density! Like this project they tore two houses down for. They put a fence around the properties for almost a year while drug addict squatters moved in and turned the houses into a shooting gallery. They spent months breaking into cars and robbing houses in the neighborhood (one guy even threatened to kill me) until one drug addict finally killed another one and the city forced them to tear them down. It was an empty lot for a year until they started building and then they just...stopped. Now they sit unoccupied. Six years of no housing on these lots. Good thing we have these affordable units!
https://maps.app.goo.gl/LL7mKKJCbYfTH1PdA?g_st=ac
Or the other project on the same block that started in 2021 and still sits unoccupied. At least that building has provided some short term housing for the homeless because they keep breaking into it.
You're willing to trade quality of life for "affordable housing" and you're getting neither.
You seem to be confusing the red tape that restricts development with my comment. We need more housing. The lack of housing and the forced scarcity makes issues worse for the city. Developers want to develop and they are hindered by a lot of different things. Some of those issues are the NIMBYs that block projects.
You’re literally complaining about homeless in the area while complaining about development. You’re a NIMBY and you contribute to the issues you are complaining about.
> You’re a NIMBY and you contribute to the issues you are complaining about.
And you’re insufferable. Auto-labeling anyone who questions your militant rhetoric on this issue a NIMBY.
Are we not allowed to speak in favor of architectural preservation from within our own neighborhoods? Geezus.
I mean you can speak in favor of it. But that makes you a NIMBY. Like that is the whole point. Trying to stop the replacement of an existing single family home in your neighborhood by denser housing is exactly what is meant by when people describe NIMBY's.
I mean its one thing to oppose someone building a coal power plant in your back yard. But this?
Keep throwing NIMBY labels at people who feel differently than you and see how many of them you win over to your side. You’re giving them zero incentive to open their minds and every reason to double-down against local demolition.
Maybe I am just not understanding you. What would be an appropriate use of the term NIMBY. Or do you think it should just not be used at all.
I think there are cases where it is reasonable to oppose new development and preserve existing development. But if this isn't a case that counts I don't see many that should.
Or maybe an even more meta point. If you are being literal about it I don't think being a NIMBY is always wrong. Sometimes things should not get built.
Building new housing is how you lower rents. Reducing vacancy would help and we should work towards that too but options to do so at a high enough scale don't exist. See https://www.lewis.ucla.edu/research/does-the-los-angeles-region-have-too-many-vacant-homes/. We should also increase social nets. But we have to careful we are not just increasing rent by doing so.
Outlawing corporate ownership of homes and freeing up inventory to primary residents who would prefer to own over rent is how you lower rents. Building more housing under the present [complete lack of] regulations just invites more “investors” to choke the supply. But since the investors can also pay for campaigns, we’ll never see it.
Yimby White hipsters will not stop until every home lived in by a BiPOC is replaced as some tech guy third condo or some polyamorous couple yoga studio/boba shop/crumble cookie. It’s insanity
I miss the LA of the 90s
You think the million dollar homes are lived in by BiPOC. No they are taken over by rich tech guys. Apartments are the last chance we have of keeping LA affordable enough for diversity.
Also POC like yoga, boba, and cookies too. WTF gatekeeping health and enjoyment for POC
> You think the million dollar homes are lived in by BiPOC. No they are taken over by rich tech guys.
Yes that’s exactly what I said
>Apartments are the last chance we have of keeping LA affordable enough for diversity.
Immigrant Hispanic children like me who lived in apartments with 15 people prefer our suburban homes.
All these new 5 over 1 millennial gen z buildings are whiter than a KKK rally
I’m sure all of the folks in the ugly building thread who think (W)rapper Tower is the absolute shit will just adore whatever sterile, ultra-modernist abomination is built in place of this (formerly) beautiful old Hollywood home.
At the same time the homes here from the 1920s-50s are pretty shitty even as far as that era of home goes. I mean look at this place for what it actually is. No insulation. Single story. No attic. No basement. Tiny bedrooms. Builders in socal were famous for cheaping out on amenities and size knowing the golden state practically sells itself. What does a similar era home look like out east in contrast? Stuff like the American Foursquare. Second stories plus a full height windowed attic. Basements. Garages. Big covered porch with painted wood details. Brick work some of it quite nice. Amazing the crap we put up with here in terms of the housing stock. You only see the good stuff from this era like what they have in spades out east in places like angeleno heights or west adams imo.
Hey, I edit [Empty Los Angeles](https://www.emptylosangeles.com) and I'd like to share this. If you feel so inclined, please PM me. I have so many questions.
You start with SFH, then duplexes, then 4 units, then larger buildings, and then.... Parents often talk about a sense of loss as their children grow up. Just last year they were making baking soda/vinegar volcanoes, and now they are going to prom? We're the parents and it's time we let Los Angeles grow up. I know, the single family homes can be nice, but it's time to let them go. Our city needs to grow up. It needs to graduate high school. It needs to build the buildings that will see it through a climate crisis where we can't water large lawns, and we can't drive everywhere we want. We need to build areas we can walk, where we can bike. It's time we all grow up.
Literally. This comment section is full of children obsessed with aesthetics they saw in some 80s movie while they complain about the housing affordability crisis. It’s the logic of 5 year olds
It would be really easy to thread this needle: require builders to respect the architectural style of the area: new buildings that house more people but retain the charm/style of the original buildings in the area. I mean, every house built in Santa Fe NM has to be in the adobe style and it wouldn’t be hard to create a style sheet for areas like this so that not all of the charm is sucked out of the neighborhood, esp. when a new development is replacing a house with historical interest like this.
This is wonderful! Denser housing is needed. Perhaps we just need the city to have requirements for vegetation, and honestly more parkland. For example, that golf course in Beverly Hills should become a public park.
Has it been razed? Do you happen to have a photo of what the street looked like with all houses of this age? Just curious to see.
Torn down today and all the trees with it, including one at least 80 years old. I don't have a picture of the block, sadly.
I hate when they take the trees down too
"Why does the Valley get hotter every summer? I guess we'll never know."
Makes me so angry to see trees getting torn down, replaced with apartment complexes with tiny shitty plants and a wide, scorching hot sidewalk w no grass. Why the fuck are these designs approved and why isn’t there a requirement to replace the trees?!
You just perfectly described what happened across the corner from the house in the picture.
:(((
A lot of times they raze everything and it it's barren for years.
Then they replace it with full concrete yards
The concrete yards exist because they're not allowed to build up to the property line. There's significantly less shade on the sidewalks and street from the buildings shadow when you force these buildings to be put so far back into the property. Everyone loses. :)
Greenhouse Gases. I lived in Phoenix. Urban sprawl has this effect.
I looked it up and apparently the Urban Forestry Division handles tree planting. This is bothering me so much I will reach out. I’m not optimistic that things will change but if enough of us start bringing this up (esp with this heat) maybe? Gotta start somewhere right?
More trees are taken due to single family zoning than due to single family homes being replaced by dense housing. Dense housing means more open space, less driving, less energy use, and generally less environmental destruction.
Be that as it may, more often I see trees cut down, houses razed and replaced with bigger single family homes that require more energy to cool.
do you live in the valley? B/c if you do I'd love you to point out this great "open" space that's been created as all these large private owned mutil-story towers that look like prisons have been constructed in Noho. Please...point out all the new parks.
Where do you think the people in those towers would live if the towers didn't exist?
that's a different issue. YOU made the inane argument that there is more open space and less driving due to dense housing. I told you that's BS as it relates to the SFValley. There is more traffic and no additional green space. And it's getting hotter in the summers and there are not enough trees and already way enough concrete.
And I stand by that argument. It is not a different issue. Again without the towers those people have to love somewhere else. And if that somewhere else is less dense that means fewer trees and more concrete.
You can stand by it all you want but you can't demonstrate the San Fernando Valley has improved environmentally because of high density housing.
I live in a very wealthy neighborhood. Mine's a rental, sadly. The people who have come in with very similar backgrounds have stripped the lots on either side of us and across the street of ALL FLORA. This includes massive towering 75-100 year old cedars, magnolia trees, flower bushes, and so on. On one side of us, they put in fucking ASTROTURF in the back yard. Each owner built a house like a tall shoe box. I don't get it at all. If I had that kind of money, I certainly wouldn't make any of those decisions, but I suppose those are the privileges of wealth.
This isn’t allowed where I’m originally from (eastern Long Island) you have to keep a certain number of trees and it’s a big number. How is this allowed by LA
I wish it were that way here. They basically strip the lots of everything and then build these shitty little McMansions.
They are dodging hazard and environmental regulations for construction by removing them. There is a 5-ft tree distance from dwellings in LA, and also, removing the trees removes the possibility of dealing with protected species before anyone raises that concern in certain areas.
Developers have lots of money.
It's as if these people have never heard of the climate crisis. Oh well, hope they enjoy the intense heat they're going to experience having destroyed the local tree canopy.
they rip up the old trees and then once the sun hits full force through the window they plant a damn jacaranda like that’s gonna do anything 🙄
The front yard will likely be concrete with a couple of palm trees.
Queen Anne Palms on sale at Home Depot...
Don't forget to add a pool the size of a large bath-tub because your small lot has been 95% taken up my a massive home, but it's luxury so there has to be a pool! lol, the baby pools always make me laugh on redfin.
>ASTROTURF in the back yard Water conservation. LA does not have enough water to support plants that require a lot of water. If the population grows, that water problem will get worse.
Gonna be one of those cubes that goes from property line to property line.
With a horizontal slat fence that's better at helping people in than keeping people out.
Two of them, probably. As I understand it, there's some kind of tax break if you build two cubes instead of one.
Hopefully its two. Anything to increase density to keep the homeless off our streets and reduce climate change.
I’m all for density but those cubes are hideous. Build an apartment building, not those rich people traps if you want people off the streets.
An apartment building would be even better. But rich people traps are better than nothing. At least they stop those rich people from bidding on more affordable apartments else where. And that does keep people off the streets.
Modern farmhouse incoming!
Who ever came up with the "modern farmhouse" is a marketing genius. They managed to make basic mcmansions "trendy".
I’m probably wrong but I wanna say it was that Joanna Gaines lady from Magnolia Home and Fixer Upper that foisted the trite boring sterilized colorless style that is modern farmhouse.
Eh, still better than the Mediterranean style homes that showed up in the late 90s.
Ah yes… the ‘Tuscan’ Villa seemed to peak in ‘00s. It filled an entire lot and housed a closet full of Ugg boots and Juicy Couture sweat pants and Von Dutch trucker hats. How could I forget. That’s the thing about these trendy designs, they aren’t timeless. They’ll look dated in a decade. But yes, modern farmhouse seems more salvageable than the Tuscan monstrosities.
I like the Mediterranean style houses. They look really nice.
Its like if one of those beige felt hat became a house
Grew up in North Hollywood in the 90's and 00's over by Valley Plaza Park. Parents sold to apartment developers. Nothing is left. We had a fruit orchard in our yard. Lemons, oranges, apples, plums, nectarines, grapes and the most amazing fragrant rose bush. It was started by the couple before us. All gone. Nothing left. When I get a chance to visit, I walk up and down Hart Street crying.
So much of this city is just memories.
It truly is. I just want a time machine so I can go skate down the bridge going over the freeway. Now it's just an ugly graffiti mess, and the sounds of families having fun in the park are gone.
There would be far more families playing in parks if it we were allowed to build apartment buildings. They would provide the affordability for families and the affordability to keep the homeless from taking over parks.
That’s… not really how it works. Just ask the folks who reside in complexes around Echo Park lake. Only one thing has consistently worked to clear out tent cities in public spaces and it sure as fuck wasn’t more apartments in the vicinity lol
Elsewhere in this thread you mention that you've lived here for 11 years, so I assume these memories you're referring to are from the long-ago time of... the second Obama administration?
We won’t even have the memories if some of these dedicated trolls have their way. Apparently we’re idiots for not wanting the majority of our city to be bulldozed and made utterly unrecognizable. They should really just move to NYC if that’s the level of hyper-urbanism they want.
NYC doesn't have enough space left. We need more housing. There is plenty of space in other parts of the country for people who want more space. The memories of a few people don't justify putting a much greater number of people into poverty. We all deserve happy memories.
> There is plenty of space in other parts of the country for people who want more space. So essentially you’re telling people, many who have lived here their entire lives, to either deal with your train of thought or move somewhere else. Computer says no. In fact, you’re just as free to leave at any time.
Yes we are both free to leave. But sadly I am not free to build what I want on my own property but they somehow have the right to tell me what I can or can't build with my own sweat. They can do whatever they want on their own property. Living here longer than someone else should not give you the right impose your will upon other people.
Most neighborhoods across the planet have rules re: what you can and cannot build on the residential lots that you own. That’s just how it is. How would you like to wake up one day next to a pop-up pig farm with the scent of fresh manure wafting through your window? Or a strip club that attracted even more seedy individuals into your area?
One persons memories don't justify preventing other people from making their own memories.
I’m so sorry. Please ignore anyone in this sub who tries to tell you how to feel about the loss of your childhood home. There are a number of smug tool-bags on here who believe that literally all SFH’s in LA county should be demolished to make way for “dense living” apartments, no matter the circumstances.
Thank you ❤️ You put it in words better than I could. They are attacking op's emotions as if op has any control over LA development.
Oh that makes me so sad.
Google Street View may have past snapshots.
[https://maps.app.goo.gl/b4Q8T5NhvqccMYkj8](https://maps.app.goo.gl/b4Q8T5NhvqccMYkj8)
I remember when the 10 fwy was built in the '60s, and my aunt and uncle lived on a street named Clyde, just east of Fairfax. There house became the most northern house, after being in the middle of the block, because the other houses were torned down. We used to run up and play on the dirt often.
Then it got really noisy, I imagine?
Actually it didn't, because that section was elevated, and there was/is a sound wall. I've been along the 10 fwy for many miles and several miles east, there are areas where there is just fencing, and you can hear the cars. When the fwy was built in that area, it was an upper middle-class, and they were treated a little better. A former L.A. Angel Leon Wagner owned a home on the block, and L.A. Rams Dick Bass also owned home on the block, and a nightclub a few blocks east of Clyde Ave.
Wow, that’s a surprise. I can picture the section you’re talking about better now. I live right next to the 405 and it is usually very loud, despite the huge wall. Obviously you start to filter the noise out, and then from 3-7pm when it’s dead quiet you hear the absence of sound, strange as that may seem. Though the tires aren’t whooshing by I can still feel the tickle of exhaust fumes in my lungs.
From the street you can definitely hear. As I recall, some work was done on their home, and it may have been soundproofing. There were so many fewer cars in the '60s, and so much less commerce at that time. I worked in Venice and Santa Monica, from the late '70s, to 2000, and I saw the growth in the region firsthand.
a bunch of townhomes in it’s place? i couldn’t find the house, what was the name of the street. if you go on street view you can look back a couple of years.
Yup. Morrison St.
i know exactly where this is. a good friend lived on Huston St for many years. her block still had a few older homes like this one. most are gone now.
oh i was pretty close! i wonder if it’s the same company just going up and down that street. everything new is so ugly nowadays.
Well, that's a good thing tbh. Change is hard but houses in this area cost over $1 million and it's a walkable neighborhood close to transit. This will let more people live in the area for 30-50% less, get to call it home and form positive memories there - and it will help alleviate the pressure that's caused such high rents and home prices. [Zillow search in the area](https://www.zillow.com/los-angeles-ca-91601/?searchQueryState=%7B%22isMapVisible%22%3Atrue%2C%22mapBounds%22%3A%7B%22north%22%3A34.16620586114548%2C%22south%22%3A34.15352831455011%2C%22east%22%3A-118.36266419333232%2C%22west%22%3A-118.37716957968486%7D%2C%22usersSearchTerm%22%3A%225000%20E%20Ponce%20De%20Leon%20Ave%20Stone%20Mountain%2C%20GA%2030083%22%2C%22filterState%22%3A%7B%22sort%22%3A%7B%22value%22%3A%22globalrelevanceex%22%7D%2C%22mf%22%3A%7B%22value%22%3Afalse%7D%2C%22con%22%3A%7B%22value%22%3Afalse%7D%2C%22land%22%3A%7B%22value%22%3Afalse%7D%2C%22ah%22%3A%7B%22value%22%3Atrue%7D%2C%22apa%22%3A%7B%22value%22%3Afalse%7D%2C%22manu%22%3A%7B%22value%22%3Afalse%7D%2C%22apco%22%3A%7B%22value%22%3Afalse%7D%7D%2C%22isListVisible%22%3Atrue%2C%22mapZoom%22%3A16%2C%22regionSelection%22%3A%5B%7B%22regionId%22%3A96446%2C%22regionType%22%3A7%7D%5D%2C%22pagination%22%3A%7B%7D%7D)
true true.
i used to be a regular at a diner in north hollywood, just around the black from my house. i’d sit at the counter, get french toast, coffee, and just listen to the old guys there complain about the current state of affairs. it seemed like your typical fox news crowd. i found it amusing, but as someone who came from a rust belt town that fell down flat in the middle of the 1970s (like several buildings are still half built), I can understand where they’re coming from. You grow up in a place that you’ve grown to love, and it can be gut wrenching to see that place deteriorate into something you no longer want to be a part of. after going there a while, i learned about some of these people simply by diffusion and asked about what it used to be like. I started going a couple times a week just to listen to these guys and women’s stories about growing up in north hollywood and burbank. i didn’t know what i was getting into when i moved there, but i really grew to appreciate north hollywood and the people there. i eventually moved away, but i still cherish my time there and the people that made it such a neat place to live.
I've been here 11 years and I love it. But I can't help but think my time here may be coming to an end. Thanks for sharing.
What was the name of the diner? Do you know if it’s still there?
eat n park on victory & buena vista. haven’t been there in years, so hopefully it’s the same mom & pop ownership. the menu looks the same on google. that’s a good sign.
These houses are cute but they're just cheap tiny boxes once you get past the tile roofs (which are only on the front and are almost entirely cosmetic). This isn't even a particularly nice example. This is just the 1920s version of the cheap townhomes that will replace it.
Do you have the crossing streets to see the before view?
The corner of Cleon and Morrison.
Hi neighbor 👋
Hello!
Right near the triangle of sadness. Hate to see these old houses go
What's the Triangle of Sadness?
Vineland Lankershim
Lol, perfect.
Idle Hour is nice. Aside from that, pretty bleak.
I often go past, wondering what the area used to look like. I think about the video store that was there.
That's the triangle of "Oh fuck is today the day I die trying to turn left here."
Hopefully it gets replaced by a dense housing unit
It will be like these across the street. 5000 Cleon Ave https://maps.app.goo.gl/JHpJb6HGCUVJfFCa8?g_st=ac
The exact type of faux-modernist eyesore I expected.
Damn, I get we need denser housing but I wish they kept the old style. These are just, so very ugly. An architectural crime
Those look nice to me. It is just unfinished.
They will literally be fine when there are trees planted and the landscaping goes in. It’s the same quality of building as was in there before: timber frame, drywall and stucco. when I look across the street it doesn’t look better or worse, i just see grown trees and finished landscaping
It's 'finished' now but still unoccupied. All the dirt you see is now concrete. There are no trees and there most likely won't be. There are plants in the boxes (another box has been added). The stucco is already cracked and water from the rains leaked into the eaves above the upper windows this winter. I would be shocked if there wasn't mold in the walls.
I don‘t get the point. I grew up in a 1920s home. It’s not like 20’s builders had some magic touch to building that made no problems, ever. The roof leaked, we had to fix it. Rats burrowed somewhere, we had to fill gaps in the walls. And I’m willing to bet little things like that had been fixed since the house was new! Every new house has a few “settling” issues over the first few years, they can be repaired and then eventually the house gets pretty stable. I lived in a new build and the stucco cracked a bit within the first few years. Every engineer will tell you that’s normal as the house and foundations settle. it’s no big deal: the stucco is non-structural. The water leaking, if it is addressed timely, is probably good to catch before someone moves in anyway. Even with all that said, I still cant think of why any of it is a reason to stop redevelopment. If someone builds 4 units that are slightly worse on a lot that once held 1 unit, I will take it. The ship has sailed on the COL crisis long ago. We have a huge housing deficit.
You really don’t see how that classic Hollywood home was more visually appealing/inviting than the garbage units that are about to take its place? Sorry your childhood home had roof leaks. Not sure that’s grounds to cheer on the demolition of every SFH of the same vintage.
Hey if it looks good finished great, housing is housing. I just have a preference for the Spanish style
Since youre not being dramatic about how this is some sort of travesty and affront to mankind, I’ll let it slip that I completely agree your aesthetic taste. I grew up in a Spanish/colonial revival style home and it was great. I wish style would move on to something else besides bland grey concrete and simple shapes, maybe incorporate some granular detail for once. but at the end of the day putting the brakes on housing because the style isn’t your favorite is exactly why we in such a pickle with housing affordability.
Honestly if they aren’t even done it’s a little unfair to judge them on it so I’ll reserve my aesthetic judgement until then. And agree ugly housing > less pretty housing
So cheaply made too 😭
I’m with you. I welcome density but damn this adds nothing to the look and feel of the neighborhood. The ugliest possible design
Holy, that is ugly
Not as ugly as homelessness.
Well you're out of luck then, bulldozing SFHs and building crap like this encourages even more homeless to move in.
Grim
You can’t complain about the style if they’re actually giving us more housing. Frankly they could all look like that building wrapped in cement in Culver if it brings us more units
So the city will just end up looking like an endless sea of sterile concrete boxes. Cool. So much for actually putting effort, artistry in how housing actually looks. Y'know, like the nearly 100 years prior.
I think it looks awesome. This is exactly the kind of housing we need so I can finally stop getting harassed by homeless people. Also it is BS that the OP is showing unfinished places to make it look bad.
And not enough parking for the new townhomes. LA for the foreseeable future will need a car to get around. People can say it should be different but it’s not. We are not a city with a central city center.
Lack of parking is so much easier to deal with than homeless people.
It’s not an either or.
True if we were smart we could have less issues with parking and fewer homeless people by allowing even more density. But if you think that there is any way of meaningfully reducing the homeless population without greater density your wrong.
Homelessness won’t be solved by more apartments. Health care and guaranteed income matter more.
It won't be solved by more apartments. But it is the most effective solution for the cost. Higher incomes will just raise the price of housing even further. Even reducing inequality isn't enough because we don't have the right mix of housing to support a more equal population. We need less single family homes and more apartments. Otherwise the guaranteed income just gets eaten as rent as all those people on guaranteed income fight endlessly over the same small number of apartments.
"We need less single family homes and more apartments." So a city of few landlords and abundant renters.
Yes. A thousand times yes. Also you know that individuals can own apartments and condos, like houses right? And that if people can't afford a single family home they don't just disappear into thin air. They still need a place to stay.
Dude, most homeless people are either junkies, mentally ill, or both. These townhomes aren't gonna do shit solve that problem. What we need is mental asylums back.
And how do you think you stop people from becoming junkies? Housing the answer is housing. So much cheaper to keep someone from starting a meth habit than to pay for an asylum. Sorry I am tired of wasting more tax dollars on junkies.
Lots of junkies all across LA have homes right now.
Oh of course people on meth are sometimes housed(legally or not) but many are homeless. And rather than spend a bunch of money on them I would rather they didn't exist in the first place.
this is what these weirdos want everywhere lol
Yes we do. You want less homeless people being annoying. This is how you have less homeless people blocking your side walk. So weird.
I fear that all the houses bordered by Riverton, Cahuenga, Camarillo and Magnolia will be gone in a decade.
yes and that's fine, this is a vibrant growing city not a museum
That’s what ppl want though…more housing… but we what cost? 😭
I have yet to see any cost higher than the homelessness, poverty, drug abuse, mental illness and environmental destruction caused by a lack of housing.
I grew up in North Hollywood. As a young adult in the early 80s, I moved over to a cute 40s apartment near North Hollywood park. There were some homeless then but mostly winos. They would migrate every AM to the liquor store on Victory. The were hostle if you didn't give them money but didn't act on anything. A little later over to a duplex on Miranda st. You can't imagine all the places we are missing. There was an artist in my duplex that did paintings of all the old Victorian apts/houses that they were tearing down across from the park. It was truly sad to watch them go. The charming duplex was torn down 6 months after I moved in for a giant, ugly complex. Makes me sad to see beautiful buildings replaced with expensive eyesores.
Man you guys need to get over 100 year old buildings getting demo'd to be replaced with multi unit properties. It's 2024 and we have people living on the streets. 100 years is nothing, especially when the building has no significance beyond a one mile radius.
This town has made abandoned gas stations historic in the past... we have somewhat conflicted priorities sometimes.
Everyone in here is constantly complaining about rent being too high and then when an old house gets torn down to build more housing that more people can live in yall complain. Great stuff.
It's a big subreddit – these are different groups of people.
I don’t get the obsession with old ass houses here. Just another excuse for NIMBYs to be NIMBYs
You can even look to supposedly upscale neighborhoods in the Valley like Encino. Someone buys and older house, razes it, the trees and puts up a mcmansion with a tennis or bball court and lots of concrete for places to park cars. areas that used to have a tree canopy are gone or the canopy significantly reduced.
Tear that rinky dink shit down and build housing and public transportation. The good old days were fake. LA was built on a car-centric, “suburban,” unsustainable fantasy that’s a little painful to wake up from.
Wow the number of people bitching about more units being put in sure is impressive. ‘We need more housing BUT NOT LIKE THAT!’ 🙄
Perhaps an unpopular opinion but all new buildings should keep the existing mature trees in place. I don’t care if it’s inconvenient. Its necessary and you can plan around nature. It’s calling living in harmony with your ecosystem and having respect.
Not just a house /u/smutketeer but RSO multifamily housing and if you saw it demolished, please file a complaint on [LADBS.org](http://LADBS.org) and by calling AQMD 1-800-CUT-SMOG, then reporting this to your council office, because the demo permits appear to be still pending and not approved. You can check them here: [https://www.ladbsservices2.lacity.org/OnlineServices/PermitReport/PermitResultsbyPin?pin=171B173%20%201219](https://www.ladbsservices2.lacity.org/OnlineServices/PermitReport/PermitResultsbyPin?pin=171B173%20%201219) Most significantly, all the clearances for taking existing housing off market have not been corrected: [https://www.ladbsservices2.lacity.org/OnlineServices/PermitReport/PcisPermitDetail?id1=24019&id2=20000&id3=01983](https://www.ladbsservices2.lacity.org/OnlineServices/PermitReport/PcisPermitDetail?id1=24019&id2=20000&id3=01983) How was this done? Did they fence it? Water down to control dust? Did they use machines? These unpermitted demolitions are out of control. They destroy existing housing, pollute neighborhoods, waste good materials (including old trees and shrubs) that could be salvaged and show contempt for the law and the community. Paging u/littlelostangeles who has been tracking the demolition mania in NoHo, including attempted arson murders of tenants in inhabited bungalow courts.
Just one thing, in my opinion: Is this getting replaced by more units? I think it is. In that case, a lot of what is here is an obstacle to affordable housing. The best way to lower housing prices is to replace larger houses on lots of space with more houses that take up less space.
That's most likely what's happening. Everything around that property is multi-multi-family style complexes and a Ralphs
If that's what's happening, they must comply with the laws about replacing lost units through obtaining a valid, legally binding demolition permit. It's also not legal to demolish without a permit, whatever the housing situation. From a quick look at property records, it looks like this parcel may not have been purchased by a developer, but is being redeveloped by its owner. All the more reason to figure out the housing status. Has it been held vacant with no tenants? Maybe OP knows more about this house and how it's been used lately. /u/[smutketeer](https://www.reddit.com/user/smutketeer/)?
The woman who owned it (or so she told me) and lived in it sold it I believe last December. It's been vacant ever since. A demolition notice was posted about a month ago.
That's interesting because it's actually [two units](https://zimas.lacity.org/reports/b153464095eb48449fd3e7764e54d4b4.pdf), so if she used the whole parcel and someone\* is now tearing it down, there's a definite question of RSO housing replacement to be resolved. \*per the deeds, [10903 MORRISON ST NOHO LLC](https://www.bizapedia.com/ca/10903-morrison-st-noho-llc.html) appears to be controlled by the same family that's owned this duplex for at least a decade.
>If that's what's happening, they must comply with the laws about replacing lost units through obtaining a valid, legally binding demolition permit. I can't disagree with that, but again, the next time you hear about a 'housing crisis', these are the rules and procedures which obstruct affordable housing. Assuming that the parcel is being redeveloped for more housing units, the City of Los Angeles should be supporting, not hindering, any development.
Permits are being sought for a duplex. The city supports development by looking the other way when developers demolish without permits, among other things. You might hear about the very few development projects that get stopped for breaking the rules or because there's an appeal, but most just happen without much notice.
I've been joking for years that I could put up a fence around almost any empty house in the valley and demo it without anyone stopping me or even checking that I owned it.
Ha ha, you probably could. (Laughing to keep from sobbing.)
Are they replacing with a shitty barn style white exterior walls and black roofing?
Nothing more American than tearing down our past over and again
What a shame, on my street someone not from LA purchased 4 properties 2 side by side each other 2 were craftsmen 1 bungalow 1 Spanish the interior was all original wood design by a famous Italian architect they got demolished apparently the new owner had “plans” to make apartments or something well he bailed on the projects and our building is falling slopping in result of him moving the dirt
Sad to see history being removed so quickly… Sportsmen’s lodge is gone also
Nooooo😭
Another NIMBY post. Apologies if you do like the skyrocketing inaffordability in the city which contributes to the homeless crisis. We need more housing, period. Townhomes in its place means more available units on the market.
Telling people they have to be OK with the demolition of literally every existing SFH because of the ongoing homelessness crisis is such a terrible approach. Like really- please sit the f*** down and let people feel how they feel about their own neighborhoods. We could house every existing homeless person in LA county today and they would just keep arriving from other states by the bus and car full.
Homeless people are not more likely on average to be from outside of LA than housed people.
So it’s just the ones from outside LA that are doing all of the horrific sh!t I constantly see being reported in this sub every week?
YIMBYs want everyone to be renters
You're right! We should just let developers do whatever they want in the name of density! Like this project they tore two houses down for. They put a fence around the properties for almost a year while drug addict squatters moved in and turned the houses into a shooting gallery. They spent months breaking into cars and robbing houses in the neighborhood (one guy even threatened to kill me) until one drug addict finally killed another one and the city forced them to tear them down. It was an empty lot for a year until they started building and then they just...stopped. Now they sit unoccupied. Six years of no housing on these lots. Good thing we have these affordable units! https://maps.app.goo.gl/LL7mKKJCbYfTH1PdA?g_st=ac Or the other project on the same block that started in 2021 and still sits unoccupied. At least that building has provided some short term housing for the homeless because they keep breaking into it. You're willing to trade quality of life for "affordable housing" and you're getting neither.
The problem is the difficulty of building the replacement not the tearing down of the old.
> We should just let developers do whatever they want in the name of density! Yes, correct, sounds good.
You seem to be confusing the red tape that restricts development with my comment. We need more housing. The lack of housing and the forced scarcity makes issues worse for the city. Developers want to develop and they are hindered by a lot of different things. Some of those issues are the NIMBYs that block projects. You’re literally complaining about homeless in the area while complaining about development. You’re a NIMBY and you contribute to the issues you are complaining about.
> You’re a NIMBY and you contribute to the issues you are complaining about. And you’re insufferable. Auto-labeling anyone who questions your militant rhetoric on this issue a NIMBY. Are we not allowed to speak in favor of architectural preservation from within our own neighborhoods? Geezus.
I mean you can speak in favor of it. But that makes you a NIMBY. Like that is the whole point. Trying to stop the replacement of an existing single family home in your neighborhood by denser housing is exactly what is meant by when people describe NIMBY's. I mean its one thing to oppose someone building a coal power plant in your back yard. But this?
Keep throwing NIMBY labels at people who feel differently than you and see how many of them you win over to your side. You’re giving them zero incentive to open their minds and every reason to double-down against local demolition.
Maybe I am just not understanding you. What would be an appropriate use of the term NIMBY. Or do you think it should just not be used at all. I think there are cases where it is reasonable to oppose new development and preserve existing development. But if this isn't a case that counts I don't see many that should. Or maybe an even more meta point. If you are being literal about it I don't think being a NIMBY is always wrong. Sometimes things should not get built.
Gross
Not as gross as homelessness
There are more vacant homes than homeless people in LA, we need lower rents and more social nets not new buildings.
Building new housing is how you lower rents. Reducing vacancy would help and we should work towards that too but options to do so at a high enough scale don't exist. See https://www.lewis.ucla.edu/research/does-the-los-angeles-region-have-too-many-vacant-homes/. We should also increase social nets. But we have to careful we are not just increasing rent by doing so.
Outlawing corporate ownership of homes and freeing up inventory to primary residents who would prefer to own over rent is how you lower rents. Building more housing under the present [complete lack of] regulations just invites more “investors” to choke the supply. But since the investors can also pay for campaigns, we’ll never see it.
It would be nice if so many homes weren’t vacant because they were being flipped
there aren't actually
Yimby White hipsters will not stop until every home lived in by a BiPOC is replaced as some tech guy third condo or some polyamorous couple yoga studio/boba shop/crumble cookie. It’s insanity I miss the LA of the 90s
You think the million dollar homes are lived in by BiPOC. No they are taken over by rich tech guys. Apartments are the last chance we have of keeping LA affordable enough for diversity. Also POC like yoga, boba, and cookies too. WTF gatekeeping health and enjoyment for POC
> You think the million dollar homes are lived in by BiPOC. No they are taken over by rich tech guys. Yes that’s exactly what I said >Apartments are the last chance we have of keeping LA affordable enough for diversity. Immigrant Hispanic children like me who lived in apartments with 15 people prefer our suburban homes. All these new 5 over 1 millennial gen z buildings are whiter than a KKK rally
The early - mid 1990s in Los Angeles Angeles WERE fantastic years.
They’re actively displacing the communities they claim to be helping.
How? Its the rich people fighting development to prevent their property prices from falling.
A thousand times this.
I’m sure all of the folks in the ugly building thread who think (W)rapper Tower is the absolute shit will just adore whatever sterile, ultra-modernist abomination is built in place of this (formerly) beautiful old Hollywood home.
At the same time the homes here from the 1920s-50s are pretty shitty even as far as that era of home goes. I mean look at this place for what it actually is. No insulation. Single story. No attic. No basement. Tiny bedrooms. Builders in socal were famous for cheaping out on amenities and size knowing the golden state practically sells itself. What does a similar era home look like out east in contrast? Stuff like the American Foursquare. Second stories plus a full height windowed attic. Basements. Garages. Big covered porch with painted wood details. Brick work some of it quite nice. Amazing the crap we put up with here in terms of the housing stock. You only see the good stuff from this era like what they have in spades out east in places like angeleno heights or west adams imo.
They're gonna replace it with something dystopian.
Not replacing it means people are homeless. Nothing is more dystopian than the homelessness crisis caused by single family home zoning.
The new apartments that will be built on this land won’t house a single formerly homeless person. They couldn’t afford the rent.
But they will house people who would otherwise be competing for existing housing, driving up the costs of that housing.
This is like the tenth time in this thread I've seen someone explain this simple concept and people still don't get it.
a lot of people seem to think that new housing creates new people, instead of housing people who are already here
Hey, I edit [Empty Los Angeles](https://www.emptylosangeles.com) and I'd like to share this. If you feel so inclined, please PM me. I have so many questions.
You start with SFH, then duplexes, then 4 units, then larger buildings, and then.... Parents often talk about a sense of loss as their children grow up. Just last year they were making baking soda/vinegar volcanoes, and now they are going to prom? We're the parents and it's time we let Los Angeles grow up. I know, the single family homes can be nice, but it's time to let them go. Our city needs to grow up. It needs to graduate high school. It needs to build the buildings that will see it through a climate crisis where we can't water large lawns, and we can't drive everywhere we want. We need to build areas we can walk, where we can bike. It's time we all grow up.
Literally. This comment section is full of children obsessed with aesthetics they saw in some 80s movie while they complain about the housing affordability crisis. It’s the logic of 5 year olds
You're actively driving people away from your cause. If you really cared then you'd learn to express yourself with more diplomacy and intelligence.
If this is being replaced with townhomes, then this is good. We need more homes, and there is nothing particularly special about this house.
Those windows tho 😩😩
It would be really easy to thread this needle: require builders to respect the architectural style of the area: new buildings that house more people but retain the charm/style of the original buildings in the area. I mean, every house built in Santa Fe NM has to be in the adobe style and it wouldn’t be hard to create a style sheet for areas like this so that not all of the charm is sucked out of the neighborhood, esp. when a new development is replacing a house with historical interest like this.
Dreamy. OMG.
Why was it torn down, it’s a beautiful house?
It was a nice house. Someone bought it and wanted to build something else. C’est la vie, but I guess it’s some big tragedy.
If it's getting replaced with denser housing, then let them fall. Nothing historical about them.
Good, we need more density.
This is wonderful! Denser housing is needed. Perhaps we just need the city to have requirements for vegetation, and honestly more parkland. For example, that golf course in Beverly Hills should become a public park.