Debating Density

The phrase often applied to North Hollywood's development plans is "transit-oriented development" (TOD). Transit-oriented development is associated with New Urbanism, a movement among architects and planners that emerged in the 1990s to challenge traditional suburban development. Proponents of New Urbanism call for higher density growth that encourages walking and public transportation rather than relying upon the automobile (Leccese & McCormick, 2000).

Transit-oriented development seems to provide a great solution for perhaps the two most serious problems Los Angeles faces in the first decade of the twenty-first century: traffic and housing. L.A. consistently finds itself rated as the city with the worst traffic in the country (Los Angeles Times, 2007). At the same time, L.A. has a severe housing crisis. The construction of new housing has not kept pace with population growth. Since the city has very little undeveloped land on which to build, planners see greater density as inevitable (Haefele, 2007). Thus, building large apartment buildings near transit could potentially provide an ideal way of accommodating population growth without worsening traffic (Dreier & Steckler, 2007).

In addition to NoHo commons, several other large projects have emerged adjacent to L.A. Metro lines. The most prominent is the Hollywood and Highland complex built above a Red Line station. Completed in 2001, it includes the Kodak Theater, now host to the Academy Awards, a shopping center and a Renaissance Hotel. Transit-oriented developments were also completed in Pasadena, downtown and Koreatown (Fulton, 2007a; Kang, 2007).

Many residents supported the initial construction of NoHo Commons, delighted that long abandoned spaces were finally being filled (Nash, 2003). But as the final phase of the project, a seven screen movie theater with additional office and retail, was launched in early 2008, widespread concern emerged around the combined impact of NoHo commons and several other large mixed used developments in the area (Lopez, 2008).

The largest of these to be already approved by the MTA is the NoHo Artwave. Located on 15.6 acres adjacent to NoHo Commons, it's expected to contain a mix of office, retail and housing in three buildings up to 20 stories tall (Lin II & Bernstein, 2007). Moreover, in January 2008, developers proposed Artwalk East and West, another mixed used project adjacent to NoHo commons. This development would contain three 27 story towers. Supporters of these projects emphasize L.A.'s housing shortage and note the location at the intersection of the Orange Line and the Red Line is ideal for high density growth (Llanos, 2008b).

However, for critics of these plans, the problem is precisely with the expectation that transit-oriented development will reduce traffic. In support of this skepticism, a study by the Los Angeles Times showed that other TODs along Metro stops failed to significantly reduce car trips (Bernstein & Vara-Orta, 2007). Because the rail network is so limited and bus service so atrocious, residents living adjacent to rail stops find public transit inconvenient. Even if a large portion of residents in these new developments took public transit, traffic would still increase. Indeed, the NoHo projects include thousands of new parking spaces to accommodate this increase (Lopez, 2008).

The city has also received criticism for appearing to ignore the cumulative impact of seven large developments in the North Hollywood area. In addition to the high rises proposed near the North Hollywood transit hub, two major projects are planned two miles south, adjacent to the Universal City subway station. Finally, the largest mall expansion in the Valley, adjacent to the construction of hundreds of housing units, is planned two miles northwest of the North Hollywood station. Given its distance from the transit hub, it is less clear how this last project is "transit oriented," but City Councilwoman Wendy Gruel has called it "smart growth" because it mixes shopping and housing (Bernstein, 2007).

Beyond the criticisms of traffic, many residents complain that the character of their neighborhood will be destroyed, and it is here that the meaning of "urban" became especially relevant to the debate. At the town hall meeting held to discuss the development, one man emphasized, "We don't need any 37-story buildings to block our sun and views . . . If you want this move to New York" (Lopez, 2008). In an editorial, Roy Disney, chair of the NBC Universal/ MTA Project Community Working Group, claims the mayor wants "to force a new urban image on existing suburban communities" (Disney, 2007). Similarly, in a discussion about the proposed developments held on the L.A. Times website one contributor writes, "We're not New York City. We are Los Angeles, a sprawling inter connected land mass by tiny and large roads, streets, avenues, boulevards and cul-de-sacs composed of neighborhoods" (Maurece, 2008).

Significantly, while a few responses to the online forum sympathize with development opponents, the majority seem to challenge precisely the desire to remain "suburban." One post summarizes the conflict succinctly: "The big issue at stake is whether or not the Southeast Valley is a suburban or urban area. I used to live in NOHO. It's URBAN. No one is entitled to a suburban, low density, single-occupancy car lifestyle because of how their neighborhood was back when Sam Yorty was mayor" (W., 2008). Several of the posts label critics of growth "NIMBYs." Steffen T. writes, "I fear the NIMBYs more than the developers in Los Angeles. . . .we're a city of four million people, not Rancho Cucamonga" (T., 2008). Another post makes the meaning of NIMBY explicit, "Truth is these people do not want the lower class moving into their neighborhood effecting property value" (Ryan, 2008).

The view that development opponents wish to keep out the poor as much as they wish to keep out traffic makes sense in the context of the Valley's history. For most of this history suburbia meant middle-class white homeowners, and since the 1970s Valley politics has often focused on maintaining this exclusivity. As already noted, through most of its history racial exclusion was the rule in the Valley and greater integration in the 1970s led to white flight. For white homeowners who did not flee, limiting growth was key to preventing the infiltration of poor blacks and Latinos into their neighborhoods (Davis, 1992). Homeowners associations fought for local control of land use decisions so that they could restrict things that would increase density such as the construction of apartment buildings.

The movement for local control was a central force behind the effort to make the Valley a city separate from Los Angeles. The vote to secede in 2002 ultimately failed, but as Raphael Sonenshein argues, the secession threat helped win the Valley a stronger voice in the reformed city charter approved in 1999. One place they gained this voice was through the formation of neighborhood councils (Sonenshein, 2006).

Although these councils are advisory, they have significant political influence. This influence became clear in 2004 when the city council considered a proposal to require new housing developments include a certain number of units that are affordable to low and moderate income families. Before taking a vote on the measure, community hearings took place and neighborhood councils expressed strong opposition. Because of this opposition, the authors of the measure decided not to submit it to a vote. Comments at these hearings indicated residents feared the incursion of low income groups (Zahniser, 2004).

In the context of homeowner's historic struggles to maintain social exclusivity, it is understandable that many interpret the resistance to new development in North Hollywood as a continuation of this struggle. In this view, the rejection of urbanization is as much about the rejection of diversity as it is a rejection of density. At the same time, the emerging development of North Hollywood reveals that urban diversity itself has a range of meanings. While it can mean people of a diverse income and ethnic background, in the case of the "NoHo Arts District" it primarily suggests the aesthetic diversity brought by artists and their alternative lifestyle, and this latter type of diversity may actually conflict with the former.