It's no secret that Los Angeles is an expensive city. Small one bedroom apartments go for double what they would go for in a municipality of less demand. It's also no secret that this huge demand is being made worse by the incredible lack of new supply. The city of Los Angeles has expanded outward as far as it is economically feasible to do so- and even then, long commutes and crowded freeways make even the current level of sprawl's economic feasibility debatable.
It's relatively clear that the only way to put an end to the cities' rent woes is to allow the city to grow upwards, because it has grown outwards as much as it can sustain. This post isn't about how to rationally rezone and fix the city however (though, more on that will definitely come later). I want to tackle a very specific argument used by people against lifting restraints that would allow the city to meet rent demand- Manhattanization.
Manhattanization is a dirty word amongst those with a fear of density, it's a fear of not only higher density, but also that somehow by allowing taller and denser buildings into the city, the very culture of the city will change. Overnight, citizens will transform from laid back sandals-are-business-casual Angelenos to frenzied and bitter New Yorkers, the snow-capped mountains that line Los Angeles will sink back into a flat plain, and the earth will split as a new Hudson River pours in where the 101 used to be.
Of course, I'm being melodramatic here. However, I think a lot of the complaints filed under the catch-all scare word of Manhattanization is also melodramatic; at best it's an unfounded fear, and at worst it's an immoral and slightly classist argument.
Before I dive into why I dislike the Manhattanization argument, let me first give the wikipedia definition of the word: "Manhattanization is a neologism
coined to describe the construction of many tall or densely situated
buildings which transforms the appearance and character of a city." The general idea is that allowing taller, denser buildings in Los Angeles will turn it into a completely vertical city, and will result in the end of charming single family neighborhoods with palm-tree lined streets.
This segues perfectly into my first issue with the term: Los Angeles is nothing like New York. L.A. will never, ever, ever turn into a city that even slightly resembles New York. To suggest so ignores the entirely different growth patterns, history, culture, and struggles of both cities and oversimplifies the whole issue down to how many tall buildings each city has. Los Angeles will always be a city of wide palm lined streets framing an eclectic mix of single family homes and apartments in architectural flavors ranging from Victorian up to glass and concrete Modernism. Nothing short of razing the entire city down and building a carbon copy of New York on top of it will ever change this essential facet of this city. Comparing L.A. to New York is like comparing Apples and Oranges.
However, I suggest that Tokyo is a much closer point of reference for shaping the future of L.A. Both Tokyo and L.A. are cities that did most of their growing in the post-war age, both are highly polycentric, the majority of the people in both live in low-rise buildings, and both cities lie in hot spots of seismic activity. Tokyo, though it is astoundingly more intensified than Los Angeles, offers a very handy backdrop to guide Los Angeles against.
Manhattanization implies that there will be one district with skyscrapers, like DTLA through Hollywood, and that the rest of the city will move up from single family homes and duplexes to 10 story apartments. This is simply untrue.
If we look at how Los Angeles can grow through the lens of how Tokyo grew we can make a few observations that make the whole thing better. In Tokyo, skyscrapers are along high traffic arterial roads and areas with great access to transit. Transitioning away from those skyscraper density areas, there is medium density buildings that average at around 10 floors tall. These together are the most city-like areas. However, immediately after that the streets are lined with single family homes (these homes are significantly denser than the single family homes in Los Angeles, but this is mostly because of Japanese yard frontage regulation and narrower roads that allow a more compact block of housing).
The thing that NIMBYs opposed to the increase of Los Angeles density need to understand is that the growth will happen in a smart way; areas where the majority of buildings area already at their development caps will grow up higher. The single family areas where there is not demand to build high rise, high density units will not suddenly become in demand.
This brings me to the opposite side of the argument I dislike, and it's the argument that is far more destructive. This is the argument that Los Angeles is defined by it's sprawl, that Los Angeles is by definition sprawl. I don't think I should have to dive into why that's bad, a good summation of why a city works better when it's concentrated is in Ed Glaeser's "Triumph of the City". But to forsake the well being of thousands of low income Angelenos because you personally think the entire city should stay as it is is not a good enough argument. It's entirely illogical to expect that a metropolitan area with a population of 13 million stays entirely suburban, it's a rejection of the reality of the world around you. Instead of forcing people who can't afford to live in the city proper to move further and further outwards (thus increasing commute, meaning more pollution and more traffic), just accept the fact that for a city with such a population it's entirely rational to expect more high rises and more density.
