Open House or Circus?

The downturn of the economy impacted the housing market, causing decreased sales. However, California Realtors have new tricks in their bag and they will do anything to attract potential qualified buyers. If you are in the market for a home that is $1.5 million and up, your realtor might greet you on a “red carpet” or even “in a helicopter to view properties for sale.” Recently the “competition for qualified buyers is fierce.”

Agents are going to extreme lengths to attract guests to open houses. One agent promoted a new condominium project near the Beverly Center, by placing young male and female models in “velour robes and flip-flops” serving up free drinks.

Another agent, highly concerned with the guest turnout, hired “a stilt walker, shirtless male jugglers and a contortionist who floated in the pool, encased in a clear plastic bubble.”

One can’t help but wonder, “Are we at the circus or at an open house?”

The line seems to blur when desperate real estate agents are willing to spend their own money to stage these lavish, exotic, luring sales tactics. Ben Salem, an agent who works for Sherman Oaks Rodeo Reality, claims “We want to treat them like royalty.” Like many agents today, Salem is quite aware of the shrinking pool of buyers that are qualified.

There is no end for the creativity of Realtors considering the fact that Michael Gardner, a Malibu-based agent, “hired young women to give guests Thai foot massage out by the pool. He also raffled off Botox treatments.”

It seems that certain Realtors have adopted the mindset of outdoing each other to corner potential high-end buyers. Clearly desperate times call for desperate measures and Realtors are willing to “go all out to market luxury homes.”

Occupation: A True Solution?

The "Arab Spring" inspired movement "Occupy Wall Street", spread to cities like Boston, Chicago, San Francisco and Los Angeles, as well as making global appearances. Despite its worldwide followers, the movement, although very grass root oriented, seems to lack a clear focus, leadership and can be viewed as pointless, destructive and imbued with extreme socialist values. The protesters have quickly become the darlings of the media, however their peace-loving, hippie-like attitude remains insufficient when locals' complaints are piling up, cities' parks are battered and the protesters' unlikely demands abound. 

Who are the faces behind "Occupy Wall Street" and exactly what are they fighting for? The answer seems not clear and this loosely organized movement harbors a huge variety of people from different backgrounds, religion and ethnicity. However there is one uniting factor that seems to bring these protesters together; their boiling anger towards the country's current economic situation, corporate greed, high unemployment and the growing gap between rich and poor. The disparities and problems galvanizing the protesters certainly merit consideration. However their methods, goals, and longevity are questionable.

The demands of the protesters target banks, corporations, and lobbyists. They ask for reforms such as the “Return to Prudent Banking Act,” investigation and prosecution of the Wall Street criminals, regulation of lobbyists and corporations, while revamping the Securities and Exchange Commission and end the “personhood” legal status for corporations. The average American is quite aware of the disparities existing in their political, social, and economical systems. However the protestors’ attack can be a threatening and even unhelpful approach to the existing problems. The protesters should realize that fear, threats, and uncertainties will further destabilize and deteriorate our current economic state. There is a need for reform, yet the methods should be balanced, strategized, and carefully approached by all entities, including the government, corporations, and public as well.

The protesters consciously avoid having a leader and operate under general assemblies. Their website claims they are the “99% that will no longer tolerate the greed and corruption of the 1%.” How do Americans really feel about this statement? “A Time magazine poll released last week found that 54% of Americans had a favorable impression of the Occupy Wall Street protests.” The group’s popularity number is even lower, at “33%”, according to the recent “Rasmussen” poll.

(Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times / October 18, 2011) 

Within Los Angeles, the protesters have occupied “the grassy area around City Hall downtown.” As of Tuesday, “There were 366 tents outside City Hall” and the movement is further expanding to “Fletcher Brown Square.”  The occupation has already cost the city “$45,000.” With the increased need for monitoring the protesters, the city has encountered “overtime pay for General Services police” and has deployed “Eight (full-time) Los Angeles Police Department officers.” Commander Andrew Smith, LAPD, also expressed deep concern over the fact the protest is "taking police services away from the rest of the city where they should be out answering 911 calls."

Additionally there is concern for the grass and sprinkler system of the park. The general manager of the city’s Department of Recreation and Parks, Jon Kirk Mukri, estimates the repairs to revive the grass and fix more than 350 sprinklers “could cost the city as much as $400,000.” Although an extreme estimate, expenses occurred by the occupiers are unacceptable when the city’s budget is severely limited.

Ultimately how long will this movement last? The protesters are faced with many challenges, such as deteriorating living conditions, security issues, and complaints from neighboring residents. There are limited restrooms in the park, and no facilities to take showers. Although the weather in Los Angeles is favorable, protesters in New York, Chicago, Boston, and other cities with colder climates, will soon face winter conditions. In Oakland, California, city officials announced that they might “have to shut down the Occupy Oakland tent city in coming days because it is attracting rats, alcohol and illegal drug use.”

The viability of “Occupy L.A.” is also uncertain. According to Kate Linthicum, "There are a lot of big ideas floating around Occupy L.A., but not a whole lot of consensus." L.A. protesters don’t have a “list of demands” and conflicts within the group have escalated due to “drug use and growing numbers of homeless who have joined the camp.” Rachel Goldie, 20, expressed her discontent by leaving the movement. She claimed that it had been “corrupted by people who didn’t care about economic justice” and added the fact that “Everybody is pretty much just partying it up.”

Op-Ed

Here are some great op-eds that I came across:

1) Executive Action to Ease Foreclosure Crisis? 

2) How to Stop the Drop in Home Values

The Village at USC

The much-anticipated USC University Village development finally releases an official website and twitter account. “The Village at USC” is “the largest economic redevelopment project ever proposed in South Los Angeles.” The Village will replace the current “University Village” with student/faculty housing, retail, academic use, entertainment, hotel, and restaurants. “Two and a half million square feet” will be allocated to academic and university uses, “350,000 square feet of retail/commercial uses, and approximately two million square feet of faculty and student housing.” Recently they tweeted that “12,000 jobs (4,000 permanent, 8,000 construction-related) will be created throughout the development area.”

Both the website and twitter account are informative and illustrate the project in a clear, concise, and vibrant manner. The website shows that the project is not only concerned with the interests of the USC family but with the surrounding neighbors, community, visitors, cyclists, families, and Angelenos. They announced a “Community Open House” that will occur at the end of the October where individuals could “support and learn more about The Village at USC.”

In my opinion the project is essential because it will revamp the existing area. However, it will be a challenge for the developers to satisfy the various needs of the USC, local, and neighboring communities. It is imperative that the developers continue to consider the interests of a wide audience. This will allow “The Village” to thrive and impact the community as a whole. 

Manhattanize It!

Perhaps one of the most criticized, misinterpreted, trivialized, yet admired cities of the world is Los Angeles. A wide array of critics has taken jabs at this metropolis on various accounts. In the early twentieth century, the famous author and historian Morrow Mayo claimed, “Los Angeles, it should be understood, is not a mere city. On the contrary, it is, and has been since 1888, a commodity; something to be advertised and sold to the people of the United States like automobiles, cigarettes and mouth wash.” Despite this eminent reality, Los Angeles expanded dramatically throughout the decades, becoming the well-stereotyped “mega-sprawl.” Its growth pattern and its implications have always been subject of debate. Los Angeles had become a city with no distinct urban center, congested with traffic, miles of freeways segregating and isolating its inhabitants. Mike Davis, author of City of Quartz, undeniably did agree with Mayo while he chronicled the expansion, decline, and dystopic elements of Los Angeles. Despite all the extremes and existing problems, the city still remains as an attractive migration destination and it is eager more that ever to customize its growth despite an acute recession, surmounting fiscal problems and political challenges. “Los Angeles is transforming itself in ways that defy the stereotype… the nation's second-biggest city is growing inward, upward, and making a fledgling attempt to free itself from the automobile”(Egan). The current trend of “Manhattanizing” downtown Los Angeles, along with the reforming of the city’s mature urban centers, while protecting its natural resources and environment, will reshape this much criticized “mega-sprawl” into a more efficient, economically stronger, and healthier 21^st century city.

The lack of a distinct urban center has been a painful reality for Los Angeles. “Unlike almost every city in the world, metropolitan Los Angeles did not grow by radiating from a single center. It appeared when many different centers blurred together” (Fulton 8). There were many factors that contributed to this decentralization. “Land was one raw material that was available in abundance” and the speculators of the “growth machine,” along with the ever-powerful auto industry warranted this growth pattern (Fulton 8). By the early 1980’s Los Angeles had become too vast, too congested, and the “the growth machine began to collapse under its own weight” (Fulton 16).

The need for a strong urban core was acknowledged and set in motion by urban planners, developers, politicians, policy makers, environmentalists, architects, and citizens. One of the key documents that interpreted this need was the “Downtown Strategic Plan, Los Angeles,” drafted by the CRA (Community Redevelopment Agency) of the City of Los Angeles and the Downtown Strategic Plan Advisory Committee. The document exposed and stated the vital importance of a strong downtown:

           

“The Downtown Strategic Plan Advisory Committee puts forward with enthusiasm this plan about the future of the center of Los Angeles… It recommends a group of programs and projects that will benefit the entire region through the creation of jobs, housing, educational and cultural opportunities, and through emphasis on a new spirit of community.”

            The Downtown Strategic Plan, drafted in 1993, laid the footprint for the revamping of the much-neglected urban center of Los Angeles. After a four year long research process, an Advisory Committee consisting of some sixty members concluded, “what is strong and viable Downtown, and what requires transformation.” The Committee was quite aware that they were drafting a general guideline for the future of downtown, a process that might take years and even decades. They came to realize that downtown was suffering economically, socially, and was in desperate need of a new face.  The plan was “more about fundamental ideas, policies, and programs than about specific detail, and more about first steps than about precise codes and ordinances.” This was a new paradigm and a response to the declining center of Los Angeles. The efforts of the CRA and the Downtown Strategic Plan Advisory Committee resulted in new policies and regulations that led to the current trend of “Manhattanizing” downtown.

            The pioneers of this trend were artists who moved into lofts adjacent to the “eastern edge of Downtown”(Young 706). However the true pioneers of this movement were famous real estate developer, Tom Gilmore, and President and CEO of both the CCA (Central City Association) of Los Angeles and the DCBID (Downtown Center Business Improvement District), Carol Schatz. They supported and facilitated the passing of the “Adaptive Reuse Ordinance” in 2000 that initiated and formalized the “Manhattanization” process. Section 26 of the Ordinance stated its goal and general purpose as followed:

The purpose of this Subdivision is to revitalize the Greater Downtown Los

Angeles Area and implement the General Plan by facilitating the conversion of older, economically distressed, or historically significant buildings to apartments, live/work units or visitor-serving facilities. This will help to reduce vacant space as well as preserve Downtown’s architectural and cultural past and encourage the development of a live/work and residential community Downtown, thus creating a more balanced ratio between housing and jobs in the region’s primary employment center. This revitalization will also facilitate the development of a “24-hour city” and encourage mixed commercial and residential uses in order to improve air quality and reduce vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled by locating residents, jobs, hotels and transit services near each other.

            This ordinance ultimately allowed for developers to convert commercial use spaces into living quarters. It gave builders incentives and eased certain regulatory factors. One important incentive was that developers did not have to increase the number of parking spaces, within their projects, “beyond the number of spaces that existed in 1999” (Young 711). Weary Angelinos were ready to expand “inward” and “upward,” and developers spotted the obvious opportunity to rebuild and reform downtown into a live/work/play hub. By 2001 Los Angeles had issued 8500 permits for housing within its city limits and in 2002 downtown developers were adding about 4000 loft units by revamping old historic buildings. The “Manhattanizing” process had begun.

How successful and effective has this process been so far?

The Downtown Center Business Improvement District conducted a thorough demographic study that exhibits the steady growth of downtown Los Angeles. This demographic study was facilitated as an online survey with close to 11,500 participants “across the central Downtown LA population.” It concentrates on conditions such as employment, income, population, homeownership, commuting behavior, and various social statistics. According to the study, population rates have increased 15% from year 2008 to 2011 (from 39,537 to 45,518). There was also an 11% increase in the amount of available residential units from 2008 to 2011 (from 26,011 to 28,861). Of those residential units there were both market rate and affordable units. The amount of market rate units rose 14.8% (from 15,524 to 17,828). The amount of affordable units also rose 5.2% (from 10,487 to 11,038). Homeownership decrease from 30% in 2008 to 28% in 2001 and 68% of residents rented a condo or an apartment in 2011, versus 66% in 2008. As far modes of transportation to work, 40% of downtown residents utilized modes of public transportation such as bus, subway, Metrolink, etc. On the other hand the median household income levels decreased from 2008 to 2011 (from $89,900 to $86,300), which could “be attributed to the recent recession.” When it came to employment levels 83% of downtown residents claimed that they were employed and the rates remained the same for years 2008 and 2011. The study also mentioned that over the period of two years (2008-2011), 95% of downtown residents attended a special event such as “Downtown Art Walk,” “DineLA Restaurant Week,” “Pershing Square Summer Concerts,” etc. The efforts to Manhattanize downtown Los Angeles are clearly on the right track. “Downtown LA is economically viable, culturally vibrant and continues to grow strongly.” It has become the regions “hub for economic activity, employment and transport.” I would definitely agree that is has become the  “premiere destination for entertainment, nightlife, sports events, cultural arts and special events.”

Efforts to Manhattanize downtown Los Angeles did not remain limited to the region. Due to its particular growth pattern, Los Angeles’ mature urban centers, followed the same trend. In the last decade areas such as Santa Monica, Hollywood, Old Town Pasadena, and Culver City have experienced major revivals. One of the prominent real estate and infrastructure firms, the CIM Group, is responsible for a number of these projects, reshaping our city. Just like in downtown Los Angeles, these areas also experienced financial growth, tourism attraction, and a new cultural identity.

            The environment and its natural resources are crucial factors to consider when implementing major urban projects. A major concept that has recently emerged within the realm of planning is “smart growth.” The United States Environmental Protection Agency is a huge proponent of smart growth, which advocates “using creative strategies to develop in way that preserve natural lands and critical environmental areas, protect water and air quality, and reuse already-developed land.” The “Smart Growth Network” operates on the basis of ten basic principles:

“1.Mix land uses, 2.Take advantage of compact building design, 3.Create a range of housing opportunities and choices, 4.Create walkable neighborhoods, 5.Foster distinctive, attractive communities with a strong sense of place, 6.Preserve open space, farmland, natural beauty, and critical environmental areas, 7.Strengthen and direct development towards existing communities, 8.Provide a variety of transportation choices, 9.Make development decisions predictable, fair, and cost effective, 10.Encourage community and stakeholder collaboration in development decisions”

            Does the “Manhattanization” process of downtown Los Angeles embody the goals of “smart growth”? The answer is yes on many levels due to fact that it satisfies multiple principles of the concept. The urban revival of downtown Los Angeles is made possible by “reinvesting in existing infrastructure and reclaiming historic buildings.” Residents of downtown are able to” live, work, and play” with a variety of different transportation modes such as “walking, bicycling, taking public transportation, or driving as they go about their business.” All of these alternatives not only protect the environment but also foster a vibrant environment that promotes business opportunity, economic growth, and the overall well-being of downtown residents.

According to William Fulton, author of “The Reluctant Metropolis,” “sprawl is dependent on plenty of cheap land and middle-class families. For the most part, we don't have either of those anymore.” Fulton makes a distinct observation while exposing the shifting forces that are shaping our city. Los Angeles has typically grown in an outward, inefficient, center less fashion, which has led to mega-sprawl. Now Los Angeles is growing “inward” and “upward.” Los Angeles residents are fed up with unbearable traffic congestion, long commute, disconnected communities, and are ready for a new way to grow. The ultimate example of this is the Manhattanization of downtown Los Angeles. With the passage of the “Adaptive Reuse Ordinance,” “which profoundly changed the way the city thinks about its long-neglected urban center”, downtown Los Angeles witnessed a miraculous re-birth. Residents can now live, work, and play, in close proximity. These factors are greatly contributing to an improved lifestyle while transforming downtown Los Angeles into a more efficient, economically stronger, and healthier 21^st century city.

Works Cited

"About Smart Growth." The United States Environmental Protection Agency. Web. 8 Oct. 2011. <http://www.epa.gov/dced/about_sg.htm>. 

"Adaptive Reuse Ordinance." LAFD. Web. 6 Oct. 2011. <http://lafd.org/prevention/pdfforms/adaptive_reuse_ord.pdf>. 

Davis, Mike. City of Quartz: Excavating the Future in Los Angeles. London: Verso,

2006. Print.

DiMassa, Cara Mia. "Ordinance Brings New Life into Downtown L.A.'s Main Street." The Los Angeles Times. 11 June 2009. Web. 7 Oct. 2011. 

"Downtown Los Angeles Demographic Study 2011." Downtown Center Business Improvement District. Web. 7 Oct. 2011. <http://www.downtownla.com/survey-2011-results.asp>. 

Downtown Strategic Plan Advisory Committee. Downtown Strategic Plan Los Angeles. 1993. PDF, Online Ebook. 

Egan, Timothy. "Sprawl-Weary Los Angeles Builds Up and In." The New York Times. 10 Mar. 2002. Web. 7 Oct. 2011. <http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/10/us/sprawl-weary-los-angeles-builds-up-and-in.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm>. 

Fulton, William. The Reluctant Metropolis. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 2001. Print.

Mayo, Morrow. "Memorable Quotes and Quotations from Morrow Mayo." MemorableQuotes.com. Web. 6 Oct. 2011. <http://www.memorable-quotes.com/morrow+mayo,a1669.html>. 

Young, Matthew A. "ADAPTING TO ADAPTIVE REUSE: COMMENTS AND CONCERNS ABOUT THE IMPACTS OF A GROWING PHENOMENON." Southern California Interdisciplinary Law Journal 18.703 (2009): 702-27. Web. 7 Oct. 2011. <http://www-bcf.usc.edu/~idjlaw/PDF/18-3/18-3%20Young.pdf>.