Density Without Recentralization Will Fail

Density seems to be becoming the political battleground in LA right now, but in the process I think people are missing the larger imperative. If LA really intends to confront the structural causes of the massive problems it faces, it is going to have to radically reverse the policies of decentralization it has pursued throughout almost its entire history. This represents an even more profound challenge considering how such reversals cut to the heart of Los Angeles’ identity and of the entire California Dream.

The pursuit of density for density’s sake will come to nothing if it is not accompanied by such a strategy of recentralization. It's helpful to consider that it was the Bradley administration’s eighties pro-growth excesses (now potentially being replayed by Antonio Villaraigosa) that provoked Proposition U and spawned the anti-development crusade that Zev Yaroslavsky continues to champion to this day. In this light, the current economic slowdown and mortgage crisis could actually offer LA the opportunity to slow-down, restructure, recentralize, and come back a leaner, meaner and smartly densified city. But that of course depends on whether LA is willing to truly break with the unsustainable policies and strategies of the past.

LA has three logical cores to direct recentralization into: Downtown, Hollywood, and Westwood. Jobs, housing, and transit infrastructure should be diverted from the newer, lower density periphery areas and into these cores. This is called investing in what you already have.



Decentralized jobs in Los Angeles are currently scattered throughout the region. The strategy of job decentralization was originally premised upon the idea that it would bring jobs closer to suburban workers. In reality, it brought jobs closer to a select handful of suburban residents (who most often worked elsewhere) while placing those same jobs out of reach for the remainder of the region’s workers. Recentralized job concentrations would make jobs accessible to the largest number of workers possible, rather than to a few at the expense of the many.

Decentralized housing in Los Angeles currently sprawls miles from the three cores and their infrastructure. Low density residential use at the center hogs space and squanders the region’s valuable, limited resource of center-city land. Underutilized central land also drives up housing costs and creates housing pressure that is displaced in two ways: outward toward ever greater sprawl and inward into the limited, increasingly overcrowded and deteriorating multi-family housing stock. Increasing residential density coupled with recentralization would redirect market pressure towards the core where land is more valuable and help alleviate sprawl and overcrowding.

Decentralized transit in Los Angeles is currently stuck in a losing game of chasing after decentralized riders to take them to decentralized jobs and other decentralized destinations. But which decentralized riders should be taken to which decentralized location? And how do you collect millions of scattered people going in different directions into a single transit line, much less an integrated transit system? Recentralization of housing and employment would create distinct commercial concentrations surrounded by high density residential zones that could be logically and effectively served by public transit.

UPDATE: This Wired article succinctly summarizes the decentralization that lies at the heart of LA's transit problems:

Los Angeles' urban planning doesn't help either, as its low-density sprawl makes it difficult to provide rapid transit service to every part of the city. In addition, because areas are so spread out, riders are sometimes required to drive to a kiss-and-ride lot to take the train; many, however, once in the car, just decide to continue driving. Finally, there are only 446,000 jobs in downtown Los Angeles, meaning that the other 4.4 million employed in the county work in other areas outside this so called "central business area." Commutes, therefore, do not form in a traditional downtown/outbound pattern to and from a single, dense, central location - the patterns tend to be a bit more random. Not every destination will be able to have an easy connection to a rail line. Commutes may need more than two transfer to complete the journey.

(h/t Streetsblog)