Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Recently passed laws in California are overturning decades of bad NIMBY laws that have encouraged sprawl, limited dense development, and helped make home ownership unaffordable for most of the state's population. These things really had to happen at the state level in California as local governments have been reluctant to give up the power (and profit) that comes with approving zoning exceptions on a case by case basis. Are similar things (and maybe more) happening in your state or city?
Washington state has long required every urban county and city (above a certain size iirc) to accept growth, based on State-produced population estimates. This is why you see at least a few 5+1 apartment buildings in any suburb and often a great many.
They've tightened a few things over the years, though more is left to be done. One big win recently: Anywhere that allows a hotel has to allow a shelter. Finally it's not just Seattle and a few other cities.
Washington state has long required every urban county and city (above a certain size iirc) to accept growth, based on State-produced population estimates. This is why you see at least a few 5+1 apartment buildings in any suburb and often a great many.
How has that worked in practice. It's the same in California but only recently has it had some teeth with Newsom threatening to withhold state funds from cities that don't zone to meet targets. Also, in the past California growth estimates forced almost all growth into far away suburbs and exurbs.
Quote:
They've tightened a few things over the years, though more is left to be done. One big win recently: Anywhere that allows a hotel has to allow a shelter. Finally it's not just Seattle and a few other cities.
I like that, but even that would exclude many super-wealthy communities that are either unincorporated or have little to no commercial development, hotels included.
What does Seattle have at the city or state level regarding retail? For a neighborhood to be walkable, there has to be convenient, walkable amenities. LA has been really bad at this for decades and only older neighborhoods like downtown, Hollywood, Koreatown, and a few others have retail without significant parking requirements. And outside those areas retail is often allowed only on commercial corridors. So you end up with retail being mostly on streets built for cars, with lots of parking, and not the best experience for pedestrians.
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,550 posts, read 81,117,303 times
Reputation: 57755
In our city of 65,000 east of Seattle most new development is 4,000+ sf single family. There have been a total of two new apartment buildings, both along the main arterial which is the only street having bus service. There is very little walkability except for those few apartment buildings. Even for them the walkable options are very limited with only a few restaurants, and a couple of strip malls. (our house walking score is 26/100). At rent $2,300-$3,695 I wouldn't call them affordable. Our city council was turned over a few years ago when the voters replaced the 3 pro-development incumbents in order to slow down the growth.
What does Seattle have at the city or state level regarding retail? For a neighborhood to be walkable, there has to be convenient, walkable amenities. LA has been really bad at this for decades and only older neighborhoods like downtown, Hollywood, Koreatown, and a few others have retail without significant parking requirements. And outside those areas retail is often allowed only on commercial corridors. So you end up with retail being mostly on streets built for cars, with lots of parking, and not the best experience for pedestrians.
I think this is one big reason why a lot of Right Coast denizens consider LA something less than urban.
It actually has some of the most densely populated urban corridors in the entire country, especially Wilshire Boulevard from downtown to Santa Monica. But (the Miracle Mile on Wilshire a notable exception) much of the retail is situated on wide thoroughfares with parking forward.
That is not an "urban" development style. However, I can find plenty of retail stores in Philadelphia that are similarly situated on their lots, and many of these are on streets a good bit narrower than those in LA.
I think this is one big reason why a lot of Right Coast denizens consider LA something less than urban.
It actually has some of the most densely populated urban corridors in the entire country, especially Wilshire Boulevard from downtown to Santa Monica. But (the Miracle Mile on Wilshire a notable exception) much of the retail is situated on wide thoroughfares with parking forward.
I think that if you were to Google streetview, you might be surprised that most retail is on major streets that are no wider than what you find in most urban areas*. I don't think that Wilshire is anything special in terms of having street facing parking. The buildings are taller but the percentages are about the same as the other LA major streets in the core. Some stretches will have a lot, while other stretches have very little. In general the feather west you go from downtown, the newer the development and more car dependent it is. Overall central LA probably has less retail parking than many think as opinions may be influenced by spending most of their time in more touristy areas and suburbs.
*In another thread I compared street widths in LA with those in Manhattan, DC, and Seattle and the outlier was Seattle with narrower streets on average. DC had a lower percentage of wide streets while LA wide streets at their widest were no wider than Manhattan avenues.
Quote:
That is not an "urban" development style. However, I can find plenty of retail stores in Philadelphia that are similarly situated on their lots, and many of these are on streets a good bit narrower than those in LA.
I'm glad that you put urban in quotes. I think that having parking is very much an urban development style, it's just less desirable to elevate cars above pedestrians although that is just my opinion.
In our city of 65,000 east of Seattle most new development is 4,000+ sf single family. There have been a total of two new apartment buildings, both along the main arterial which is the only street having bus service. There is very little walkability except for those few apartment buildings. Even for them the walkable options are very limited with only a few restaurants, and a couple of strip malls. (our house walking score is 26/100). At rent $2,300-$3,695 I wouldn't call them affordable. Our city council was turned over a few years ago when the voters replaced the 3 pro-development incumbents in order to slow down the growth.
Not everywhere has to be walkable I guess. Some people would rather drive. But it sounds like they may be actively prohibiting property owners from building more densely. I do have a problem with that.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
