Backlash builds against Silver Lake small-lot development

The Silver Lake Neighborhood Council has refused to support a proposed five-home development on Hyperion Avenue, with one board member calling the Hyperion Avenue project “ugly” while a resident described the new town homes as out of character with the surrounding neighborhood.

An overwhelming majority of the council’s Governing Board voted last week against a recommendation from the council’s Urban Design and Preservation Committee to support the small-lot development in the 800 block of Hyperion Avenue.  While the developers said they had the right to build a larger, taller apartment complex on the same property, neighbors said the project was too large, threatened to worsen a shortage of street parking and posed a traffic safety hazard  by locating the driveway near what residents described as a blind curve.

The developers would carve up the lot for five homes under the city’s small-lot subdivision ordinance, which allows for more intense, single-family home development than typically allowed, primarily by reducing the spaces between each home and the boundaries of the lot.  The increasing popularity of small lot projects among developers and buyers, however, has also triggered concern and opposition among existing residents concerned about over development, increased traffic congestion and loss of privacy.

After voicing her opposition to the Hyperion development, Anne-Marie Johnson, co-chair of the neighborhood council, encouraged people to contact their City Council representatives and voice their concern about small-lot developments.  “I strongly encourage  [people to write letters] to stop the pockmark on beautiful Silver Lake.”

But it’s not clear if last week’s vote by the neighborhood council, which is an advisory body and does not have the authority to block development, will have on the Hyperion Avenue development. In fact, another nearby lot now up for sale is also marketed as a development site, according to people at the council meeting.

Last week, opponents of a small-lot project on the north end of Silver Lake suffered a defeat when the city’s Cultural Heritage Commission rejected an application to grant historic monument status and protection to a 1959 ranch-style house designed by noted Chinese-American architect Gilbert L. Leong.  The property had been sold last year to an owner who plans to demolish the home on Waverly Drive and build five, new single-family houses on the same property under the small-lot ordinance.   If the property had been declared a historic monument, it would have been much more difficult to demolish the home.


  1. The small-lot subdivision ordinance has been overly used and abused. It should be amended so that it does not allow as many homes on one lot. Part of the reason for it was to provide more housing and to encourage development. The Silver Lake – Echo Park area housing market certainly does not need any economic help. People are pouring money into the area. Please change the small-lot subdivision ordinance especially as it applies to the hillside areas where streets are already narrow and overcrowded.

    • Parking in Silver Lake is ridiculous already. There’s never any street parking available because the residents treat the street as their private garage when really it should be for the public. I think that anyone who owns a car should also have to prove that they have an off-street parking space for this car. Seems to be the only way to fix this people. Also, more trains would help a lot.

      • Rr22 wrote: “Parking in Silver Lake is ridiculous already. There’s never any street parking available because the residents treat the street as their private garage when really it should be for the public. I think that anyone who owns a car should also have to prove that they have an off-street parking space for this car. Seems to be the only way to fix this people. Also, more trains would help a lot.
        ” dude your either a corporate tool or you smoke so so much crack, so the people who live in silver lake are A-holes because they want to park…. omg what horrible people you should rush this info to channel 4 news right away, hell you might get the key to the city, so your either a corporate tool or you need to put down the crack pipe!

        • Aside from the proof of off-street parking…I can’t understand why people move into a neighborhood that wasn’t built around the car to begin with and has very limited parking and complain about the lack of parking in a neighborhood that wasn’t built around the car to begin with?

  2. You ask to “Please change the small-lot subdivision ordinance especially as it applies to the hillside areas where streets are already narrow and overcrowded”, but even in the flats where transit is rich and would be ideal for greater density like along Sunset, NIMBY’s like yourself still object. This is a city and cities grow!

    • I’d say that “cities CHANGE”, not that “cities grow” as the irrefutable fact.
      You’d call me a nimby, because you are a name-caller type person.
      Personally, I’m FOR RE-development and AGAINST OVER-development.
      We do not have the infrastructure (transit, roadway, utilities-esp water, etc) to support hordes of additional residents.

      • Always funny when NIMBYs claim victimization by “name-calling” when called out on their NIMBYness. Are you also for the expansion of infrastructure, especially transit? That we need to build infrastructure first before expansion is a silly argument because folks like you will never support building more infrastructure. It’s a loop NIMBYs like to get stuck in to keep out “hordes of additional residents.”

        • watch out for assumptions.
          I’m definitely for the expansion of transit, especially rail and street trolleys.
          I voted for measure R.
          Some people in favor of transit will balk on it, because it virtually always comes accompanied with “Transit Oriented Development”… tons of high density housing based on the premise all these new residents will walk or rail everywhere they go. The reality is that the vast majority of these new residents will own and use cars… making congestion, parking, etc worse.

          • You get rid of cars by making it too painful to own one. Too much traffic, no parking, parking is too expensive, etc. Mass transit comes with public demand once the car is no longer a viable solution.

          • Yes, increased transit should come with higher density housing. Transportation planning does not occur isolated from land use and housing decisions. That is what is broken in LA planning: the suburban mentality in the central city. TOD would make people walk and use rail if the connectivity within a comprehensive system made it possible to go where you need to go efficiently. Coupled with incentives to decrease traffic and parking with pricing, its a strategy that LA needs. It can’t be accomplished quickly, but it can never be accomplished if it’s never started and if residents don’t understand the relationships between transit, land use, and housing.

          • Ah, you’re one of those.. decrease auto usage by making it painful.
            For me, I’d like to reduce auto usage by making other options more attractive.

            Via your methods, auto usage will eventually be a privilege for only the rich. Others will be relegated to mass transit. Fortunately for me, I’m rich, so I’ll have the option to mass transit or drive.. whichever enables me to be most productive and further increase my wealth. Thanks!

          • The only thing funnier than people crying victim because of name calling is when they engage in it themselves. True Freedom, your thinking is circular. You don’t want density, but you want more transit. You say we don’t have the infrastructure to support growth, but the only new infrastructure you want is additional transit mode choices. You don’t seem to understand that density should go with transit if ridership is to reach levels where people actually make the mode switch from autos to transit. Increased demand is often a good reason for increased capacity when it comes to transportation planning. So what you’re arguing for then really is for nothing to happen, for LA’s housing and infrastructure to stay the way it is. As you yourself said, cities do change. Sometimes that is growth, sometimes not. Planners and city officials have to respond to that change. Silver Lake is a part of the city that is changing pretty rapidly. As for congestion pricing, I can see how you think it is elitist; I agree. But I also think that the best way to make people think about their mode choices is by hitting them in the pocketbook. Essentially the same dynamic happens when people choose where they want to live, their housing, etc. and balance out the costs and benefits of a potential commute.

        • Most of LA is too low-density for mass transit. But go and propose increasing density to the point that mass transit could become a reality, the NIMBYs will tell you there is not sufficient mass transit to support density.

          • Ryan, have you stepped out of your home any time in the last 60 years? Mass transit is everywhere in Los Angeles, and lots of it. Right here in Sunset Junction, buses go along Sunset and Santa Monica boulevards constantly. They do the same everywhere in the city. There is no lack of mass transet in Los Angeles.

            We don’t have every square inch covered by trains, no, but the buses are better anyway, as they are far more flexible than a train is — not much fun when a train breaks down, and that shuts down the entire system because it is blocking the track, whereas a bus can just go around another broken down bus.

            But just because there isn’t a train everywhere doesn’t mean that we are not already loaded with mass transit.

            And the mass transit in Los Angeles is bursting at the seams, so very crowded despite so many buses running.

            You should actually go out and see Los Angeles sometime. And even try riding the bus. You would not have said what you said if you were to do that.

          • Amy, I don’t think there would be many urban planners who agree with you that LA is loaded with mass transit already. That’s quite an exaggeration. Especially relative to other cities. In the short term, land use affects transit. In the long term, its usually the other way around. It sounds to me like Ryan is actually quite observant and astute about what’s going on in LA.

      • Just like a true NIMBY True Freedom. “Change” isn’t “Growth” and “Growth” isn’t “Change”. Stuck in a never-ending feedback loop of “NO”.

    • Sorry, but the action the Neighborhood Council has taken provides this is not NIMBY. And the stand against the project on Hyperion, while pointing out all the problems with that specific site, also took the high road and made a much broader call for for the NC to stop approving these anywhere because they think they have no choice and to instead take a stand against this Wild West overrunning of our entire neighborhood.

      We’re taking a serious risk here, in order to fight the good fight. We risk something even bigger. This is not simply a NIMBY stand — we are calling for a broad effort against this misguided SLS ordinance and against overdevelopment generally.. Development is not bad; overdevelopment is, and it can’t be reversed later. Please, all stand up now and join in this, e-mail to O’Farrell your opposition, to SLS or any overdevelopment. He should put a moratorium on these until the overdevelopment of the SLS ordinance is addressed.

      If this is not stopped in its tracks, you better realize that with the economy now back, this is just the start of an avalanche of these projects all over this area. Gee, they’re buying houses for nearly $1 million only to tear them down, because these SLS developments are so incredibly lucrative. No one will be able to buy a regular house –because the developers see so astonishing an amount of money to be made that they will and are outbidding anything any regular person can pay for a house. Mitch O’Farrell MUST step up and stop this.

      On Wednesday, the council for the first time stood up and took that stand. This is now something for all the little “NIMBYs” you seek to dismiss to join in one large fight against this very misguided ordinance., It is ruining our neighborhoods, And it is running people out (note, the house next door to this Hyperion SLS was put up for sale — because he is fleeing this neighborhood now because of this, and a number of others here are seriously considering the same. This is becoming too common. In the face of these SLS developments, residents are being pushed out).

      Save Silver Lake!

      • And what exactly is the threshold where development becomes over-development? Are you all in agreement on that? How can you even make a decision without even seeing plans and evaluating development on a case by case basis?

        The house next door is fleeing? Or is he cashing in? Residents are being pushed out how? How does that work exactly?

        • Over-development is when development strains already strained resources even further.

          Resources include mobility options (auto/roadways, train, bus, etc), natural resources such as water, electricity, open space, clean air, etc.

          • Oh, okay. I see. So then how do you plan for increased housing demand? Cities often make choices to increase infrastructure when increased demand calls for increased capacity. It’s not unheard of in cities.

          • Cities don’t have to succumb to increasing demand. There’s a lot more people who want to live in Malibu than can afford to live in Malibu (me included). However, they don’t have to over-build and ruin the city to cater to pent up demand.

            There is current zoning, which is hard to do anything about. What I mostly object to, is up zoning which is happening in these Transit Oriented Development schemes.

            As far as current zoning, there should be a moratorium on new water meters or upsizing water meters.

          • Los Angeles is the 2nd largest city in the country. Not Malibu.

          • Jerry said:

            ” Oh, okay. I see. So then how do you plan for increased housing demand? Cities often make choices to increase infrastructure when increased demand calls for increased capacity. It’s not unheard of in cities.”

            How? You consider building maybe 5 or 6 bedrooms on that site that previously had only 2, rather than 16 bedrooms as is proposed for this small lot subdivision. You don’t have to go off the deep end and be stupid in order to have more housing.

          • The developers build because of the market demand. It’s not being stupid or going off the deep end. They are responding to the market, despite whatever anyone thinks of how smart a move it is or isn’t.

        • “Residents are being pushed out how?” Their homes, mostly rentals, are being bulldozed to make way for these developments. Six small bungalows on the other side of the alley from us were demolished so Hey Dey corp (the developer) could put a building similar to the one next to the Edendale on the lot. Most of the residents there were long term renters, one lady lived in her home 27 years. So it is happening.

      • I really like the small houses they’re proposing and building in various places. Gives more people the chance to live in wonderful Silver Lake, helps keep prices down my increasing the supply of housing, and updates our severely outdated building stock. I really don’t understand the opposition to this.

        • They’re not keeping prices down. Believe it or not, they are planning to sell these things for as much as any other house with a yard. But they won’t have a yard.

          They are not keeping prices low. In fact, they are pushing them UP — because they are outbidding anyone who otherwise would have bought the existing house in order to live in it, forcing ever higher prices. Their profit level on these SLS developments is so enormous that they are willing to outbid any individual, causing a serious upward push on prices, not lowering them. People who otherwise could have bought a house now can’t get it.

          • I don’t understand you logic. This should be basic economics. More supply means that the supply and demand curves intersect at a lower price point. Thus, more units available = lower prices.

          • You have the economics understanding of a simpleton. Your consideration is at the shallow level of elementary school.

            If a mass of speculators move in with pockets overflowing, you the individual will never be able to outbid them. Because you would be wanting a house to live in, not to tear down and quintuple and sell at five times what one house would go for. The individual can’t justify paying the price of five houses just to get one house and live inn it. But the speculator can — and up prices go.

            The housing price goes up to what a speculator will pay, which will always be however much it takes to outbid all individuals and even any other speculators.

        • If you’re so concerned with “giving people the chance to live in wonderful Silverlake”, where is your outrage over the long time SL residents getting thrown out of their “outdated building stock” which gets bulldozed to make room for these “small houses?” Or does your passion for sharing only extend to property owners?

          • Thrown out? Because they were renters and the landlords decided to sell? That sucks, yes, but that’s the risk of renting rather than owning. I can’t really think of a good solution to that problem. Rent control doesn’t work very well. Maybe the developers should be required to provide equivalent housing to the tenants they boot out?

        • WOW more wise BULL from Rr22, listening to you fox news your facts up is a sad joke, how does kicking 8 long term silver lake residents out of their long term homes and replacing them with 6 add up in your crack soaked mind? you need help!

  3. I can’t believe they didn’t choose to save the Gilbert Leong house. People who visit me ask why LA is so ugly and this is the reason.

    • Echo Park resident

      I’m so appalled by this. Where can we find/read the decision? So funny how our Cultural Heritage Commission doesn’t really do much to preserve our culture and history unless it involves $$$ for the city.

  4. So the Neighborhood Council’s objections are mostly aesthetic ones? “Ugly” and “pockmarks on beautiful Silver Lake”? Thank god they are only advisory. At least the Neighborhood Council is consistent in its mission to be a powerless homeowners association elected by a miniscule proportion of Silver Lake residents. And like a homeowners association, most of them probably don’t know a lick about urban planning or even what is going on in urbanism outside “beautiful Silver Lake”, except for maybe the latest planning trends in Valencia.

    • Actually, not “latest planning trends in Valencia”, but “latest NIMBY strategies in Valencia.”

      • Ironically the loudest voices come from those that live in those very ugly behemoth 60’s-70’s era commie blocks that were built all around Silver Lake with a car park at the bottom substituting as the ground floor face for the building.

        These small-lot developments are usually quite wonderful as they lessen the impact to the surrounding area by being 1) broken up and 2) much lower density than what is really needed.

        But of course, when one proposes density along Sunset where the #2 which takes you directly to the Sunset Red Line station, the 24-hour #4 which takes you directly to the Santa Monica Red Line station and the limited stop #704 which bisects the city all the way to the beach, new developments are still opposed. NIMBY’s love to say that “if only the infrastructure were present” but even when the infrastructure is present they still oppose and that’s why they are NIMBY’s.

        Sunset Junction in particular was built around transit with 6+ story brick apt buildings built on Sandborn, right off of Triangle Plaza and along Sunset in the 20’s and 30’s!!! 100 years later the construction of a 2 story structure is met with a mob in overalls carrying pitchforks! Ignore! Ignore! Ignore! Garcetti push for increased density and lessening of the accommodation of the automobile that we all end up footing the bill. Rid the city of destructive parking mandates. And please toll (direct user-fee as is done with transit) the freeways!

    • No, they were not simply aesthetic. All the comments by the councilmembers, and all the input on which they acted, is not in this story. They took a broad stand against such a drastic clash to an area, and such drastic overdevelopment for Silver Lake, among many issues more specific to this particular site, none being mitigated. They took a stand against a one-size-fits-all ordinance as applied to a location that is not that size.

  5. I’m not exactly objective here*, but the neighborhood objections to this project seem pretty unfair, for the following reasons:

    (1) This is not a street filled with single family homes; there are 3-4 story apartment buildings all over Hyperion.
    (2) The project includes more guest parking than is required by the ordinance; and
    (3) The project doesn’t even max-out the allowable density!

    If you’re opposed to any development at all in Silver Lake, then you hate this project and every other one. But, if you’re willing to consider each project on a case-by-case basis, then I think you have to conclude that this particular one is pretty sensitively conceived.

    *Disclaimer: One of my agents sold the developer the property.

    • There are NOT 3- and 4-story apartment buildings here — get your facts straight before you spread misinformation. The buildings here are one-story and two-story. Yes, on Hoover Street down at the corner, this is a very old, red brick 4-story building, on Hoover, and probably built before zoning laws were even enacted in Los Angeles.

      This project offered ZERO guest parking, until the neighbors got them to add what amounts to a single space! The required parking is not even sufficient for the 16 bedrooms planned there, much less does one extra space accommodate visitors. What the h— are you talking about!? They refused to even look into the possibly of making common subterranean parking, which would have allowed for more parking, as well as dropping the above-ground height to two stories. Yet, it appears they expect to make nearly $2 million on this project, way more than even their investment, about 130% profit, much less a reasonable percentage.

      The maximum density might be in the law, but that doesn’t mean it is the least bit reasonable or acceptable. That’s no argument at all, other than to fight that law too.

      • LOL!!! Los Angeles was one of THE VERY FIRST CITIES IN THE WORLD to enact the then progressive zoning laws as far back as Euclid vs Ambler in 1926!! (Look it up!) HAHHHAHAHA!!!! LA has had zoning laws longer than most other cities in the world!! It’s been known as a city that is OVERZONED! Yet another undereducated stupid NIMBY!!!!

    • God bless you for the disclaimer. Apparently you have not been on the street that your agent chose for the developer. All the three story buildings on this street actually have their garages built into the hill. There are no four story buildings. The only three story structure on the west side of the street is where Hyperion meets Hoover, which is a flat area. This project, located in the middle of the block next to a retired woman living in a single family home, is just exploitive . Your agent didn’t do the developer any favors.

    • I guess you should stick to your “inspirational” paid adds on the Eastsider Mr. Moses Kagen as your pro-developer slant isn’t very popular here.

  6. I know this doesn’t help the traffic, but what we really need on this street are some food options to walk to, with friends and as families. We don’t need more housing, there is more than enough.

    • We absolutely do not have enough housing in SL.

      • not true, not every one can live in the part of the city they wish, but that doesn’t mean you just tear down houses, it just means you either move to another wonderful part of the city (the east side has tons of culture and awesome history) or you wait until a place opens up.

    • I think you might not understand where this street is. This is not the wide, major thoroughfare Hyperion north of Sunset,. This is the tiny side street Hyperion south of Sunset, with Casbah Cafe and Surplus Value store on the corner at Sunset. And the blocks we are talking about are significantly narrower than the first two blocks off of Sunset. This is a tiny street this project is proposed for, so tiny that parking is not even allowed on one side even though there is very little on the other.

    • I’d like that actually. Changing some of the R1 zoning to limited commercial on side streets within residential blocks that could accommodate cafes and small eateries would be awesome! Thanks for that idea!!

  7. The irony here is that the NIMBY complainers who want to protect the value of their investment (I’m assuming they’re owners & not renters) are only making Silver Lake a more compelling target for developers.

  8. Well, first, you’re wrong. All kinds here are fighting this, both owners, renters, even a couple different landlords. You’re yelling NIMBY and seeking to demean the people here without having a clue what you are talking about.

  9. Getting Mitch O’Farrell to do something about this should not be hard. Renee Nahum, everyone’s and our FAVORITE Silver Lake Neighborhood Council personality and Representative of Region 7 is a political consultant and ran Mitch O’Farrell’s campaign for CD13. They probably are like best friends, with Mitch seeking her guidance on issues affecting Silver Lake. Thank god political consultants are full of morals, ethics, generosity, and aren’t ruthless. And her husband, Paul Neuman, also on our Silver Lake Neighborhood Council, is Paul Koretz’ (CD5) Communications Director. AND, Anne Marie Johnson, our current Co-Chair-ness and leader (of “AirBnb = bordello” fame) works for Tom LaBonge (CD4). This SLNC trinity should be able to SAVE SILVER LAKE all on their own. Let us pray.

  10. Who is Jerry Malatesta and does he have a life ? Please Jer ??? You need to get out and Chill in the Meadow, turn off your Computer and enjoy SIlver Lake and stop your petty name calling ? How’s that Volunteer work coming that you talked about. !

    • I call the SLNC home.

    • Jerry has met every one of your baseless NIMBY arguments with cogent facts and patience that was undue. Who Ya maybe you should extract your ass from hanging out at the meadow and actually take some city planning classes and perhaps just infinitesimally begin to understand the relationship between land use, transit planning, infrastructure building and sustainable ways to grow a city.

  11. Hello aka Fallopeea – Cogent Facts and city planning – What exactly is a NIMBY – R u an anti NIMBY NIMBY or just a foul mouth dog ??

  12. Dear Jerry and Fallopian. I hope you’re getting well compensated since you’re devoting so much time to a backyard about which you know nothing. And I believe that Anne-Marie Johnson called for people to write their councilman and demand a stop to small lots in Silver Lake, not “pock marks” in Silver Lake.

    What a great idea. Let’s all write our councilman today.

    • Hi, Catherine,

      To think that people refuting NIMBY assumptions that aren’t based in the realities of urban planning, economic development, mobility/accessibility/transportation, housing, and the entitlement process are getting paid by developers is quite a revealing commentary on what is part of the problem in Los Angeles growth patterns. And really just out of the NIMBY playbook. A playbook that includes accusing your opposition of exactly what you do yourself: name calling, intimidation, just outright lying.

      Growth and congestion are not going to go away in Los Angeles, or anywhere that has a healthy economy. That is just a fact. Years of urban planning research has shown that. You can try to restrict growth, in which case it’s diverted to adjacent neighborhoods and areas; but you’re going to experience its effects through spill over, air pollution, traffic, etc. Policies, then, need to address how that growth is managed, since it cannot be stopped. To stick your head in the sand by opposing everything, in the long run, doesn’t help. A few strategies to help mitigate those realities are density, transit, and pricing. I think people ought to get informed before they just try to stop everything in the neighborhood. Do you know what the current zoning is for a lot of the parcels in the hills of Silver Lake where currently single family homes sit? Do a little research, do your homework, and I think you’d be surprised what could be built in those hills. I’ve lived in Silver Lake a really long time, and I’m so glad that not everyone here jumps to the first hysterical cry of those who don’t know what they’re talking about.


      P. S. “I strongly encourage [people to write letters] to stop the pockmark on beautiful Silver Lake.” – Anne Marie Johnson. Oh yes she did.

  13. Last night I walked down a street in Hollywood that was once beautiful. Sometime in the late 60’s/early 70’s developers from out of town gobbled up this lovely part of the City, bulldozed it, and shoe-horned in a bunch of ugly boxes with aluminum windows, low ceilings, and concrete floors. The street now feels crowded, dark, neglected. Why? Because the developers never cared about the neighborhood — they didn’t live there. They only cared about profits. The same thing is happening now everywhere I look in LA. When I see what passes as “Transit-Oriented Development” in my neighborhood, what I see are ticky-tack boxes that look like dormitories for the University of Western Oklahoma. Where, exactly, are the developments that are designed to enhance the quality of life for the neighborhood? All I see are corporate profit centers. Don’t kid yourself: the coporate developers love it when armchair do-gooders take to the Internet to call people “NIMBYs” in the name of “urban planning.” If the powers that be want more density in my neighborhood, then we need parks and open space. Until they can deliver on that, I say “Not in my neighborhood!”

    • A good term for the tactics is “Greenwashing” … making specious arguments in the name of the environment.
      “High Density housing will save the environment” is the siren call of these corporate developers.. when in reality, the developments do much more harm than good.

      • Density is limiting and doesn’t encourage movement. It creates enclaves that are satisfied to remain where they are.

        • Density is wonderful if done correctly. We need smart urban planning so that we can walk places and take the train places in addition to driving. Having a car-based society is extremely limiting.

      • So, True Freedom, I’m curious. What’s your explanation for how density harms the environment?

      • I’ve never heard that exclusively “high density” housing was the solution. I’ve only heard that a mix of housing types in neighborhoods instead of the sprawl-inducing R1 only enclaves would help lessen greenhouse gases as people would tend to drive less. Do NIMBYs always have to resort to lying and hysterics?

        • What R1-only enclave. Hyperion is already built to what you said you aspire. So, why are you continuing to say it is not enough? One minute you say that is what we should have,then you say that is not good enough — more, more, always more.

          Hyperion is already mixed, and it is not R1 at all. From your argument now, Hyperion has already done its part. I gather you want the small streets in the hills above Sunset and the lake to have apartment buildings, because that’s the only place where R1 is.

          If you’re going to give endlessly specious and double-talk arguments, they are going to come back at you.

        • In general, ruining R1 neighborhoods by introducing a “mix of housing types” is the worst of the new urbanist’s ideas. Pure social engineering at its worst. Who wants to buy a single family house right next to condos? That’s just dumb.

          • “Social engineering” is another one of those terms that is out of the NIMBY playbook. I’m not a big fan of all new urbanist ideas, but being resistant to any change at all is worse than even their worst ideas. To answer your question, there are a lot of sources where you can analyze what the market is doing and who is willing to buy where; a lot of people are making these purchases you call “dumb” because they want housing. Developers are here because the market is demanding more housing. You should also take a look at how housing typologies and demands are changing. Homes aren’t being purchased just by traditional mom/dad/2 kids families anymore. There’s lots of literature on inter-generational, senior, communal housing.

    • So, tell us, what design, what forms, what arrangements would satisfy your tastes as well as address the issues of growth and housing? How would your proposed urban form take into consideration land use, mobility, and accessibility? How should they be funded? Who should build them, if you think they should be built at all? And if they shouldn’t be built, how should the city address growth and the increased demand for housing?

      • How about the city stop screaming for everyone all over the world to come here. Stop promoting LA as the place to come to. The city expends a ton of effort doing so. We don’t need an NFL stadium to promote us to the world. And we don’t need the 2024 Olympics to scream Los Angeles to the world.

        We don’t need our elected officials to be constantly taking junkets all over the world to plead and beg everyone to come to LA. We don’t even need every last TV show and movie to be filmed here t keep LA up front in everyone’s minds all over the world (the entertainment jobs would still be here, as the studios are here and doing all the planning, the post-production would be here anyway, even the actors would still come from here because this is where HQ is and doing the hiring, actors are not everywhere you go, this is where they are), and 50 other things the city does.

        And we don’t need to be giving huge tax break to companies to move all their employees here and hire just a couple peoplee from Los Angeles. Maybe they should give those tax breaks to local people or companies who want to start or expand their business.

        And there is an entire Southern California out there — Silver Lake doesn’t have to build to accommodate EVERYONE in SoCal.

        • Sounds like you would prefer what’s available to you in a low density suburb. You’re not going to be able to stop growth. It’s sort of quaint (and a little self-absorbed) how you think Silver Lake is building for EVERYONE in SoCal.

    • And I agree with you, there needs to be more park space integrated in developments, too. But don’t kid yourself, the NIMBYs are against parks and recreational areas, too.

  14. overheard the project foreman from planet home living, who are putting up
    two high-density cracker box condo developments on douglas st.
    [& elsewhere in echo park and silver lake] right now, telling a prospective buyer,
    “yeah, we’re really cleaning up the neighborhood!”

  15. Candidate registration for the upcoming Silver Lake Neighborhood Council election is going on now. Get more info at:

Post a Comment

Please keep your comments civil and on topic and refrain from personal attacks. The moderator reserves the right to edit or delete any comments. The Eastsider's Terms of Use and Privacy Policy apply to comments submitted by readers. Required fields are marked *