Neighborhood Integrity Initiative in a Market Driven Economy

Reading about the proposed Neighborhood Integrity Initiative sent me back to thinking about planning school ideas.  How does the fact that we operate under a capitalist economy interplay with efforts to improve the quality of our neighborhoods?  Are they exclusive?

I attended UC Berkeley in the early 70's where idealism and socialism were prominent.  But even back then I realized that in a market economy planners don't plan or build for an ideal world: they direct, they mirror.

And who is for them to judge what an ideal environment would be?

These ideas came up again with the proposed initiative.  This in turn sent me to review State law on general plans.

California cities are required to adopt long term general plans for the "physical development of the City."  This sounds like an economic development plan but State enabling language also directs cities to designate the "general location and extent of the uses of the land for housing, business, industry, open space, including agriculture, natural resources, recreation, and enjoyment of scenic beauty, education, public buildings and grounds, solid and liquid waste and disposal facilities, and other categories of public and private uses."

This language seems to enable the accommodation of both growth and neighborhood integrity.

But apparently Los Angeles's planning efforts do not, hence the birth of the Neighborhood Integrity Initiative.  It is not the first such initiative but rather joins a historic list of major planning efforts spawned by lawsuits or voters.

I am wondering where to go with this blog post and one direction is to comment that one idea of the Neighborhood Integrity Initiative makes a lot of sense and is remarkably similar to a past planning effort.

But after my years as a City Planner administering LA's planning labyrinth, I am inclined to comment instead on the fluidity and dynamics of development in LA.  The Neighborhood Integrity Initiative is another part of the complexity and moving target approach that makes up the mechanics of development in LA.  As I use to say to staff:  "It would be boring if we always had the answers."

Re-Boot and Marry the Hollywood Community Plan Update and the Re-Code Project

Hopefully someone has already thought of this but just in case no one has I'm putting it out there.

With the chaos in Hollywood over new projects versus neighborhood preservation, it seems there is an opportunity to re-think two City efforts--the Hollywood Community Plan Update and Plan Re:Code  (Re-Code LA).

HOLLYWOOD

                        http://recode.la/about

VERBATIM FROM CITY DOCUMENTS:

The purpose of the Hollywood Community Plan is to provide an official guide to future development . . . for the use of the City Council, the Mayor, the City Planning Commission; other concerned government agencies, residents, property owners, and business people of the community . . .

The purpose of  Plan Re: Code (Re-Code LA) is to establish a new zoning structure that will include clear and predictable language . . . to more effectively meet the goals and objectives of the General Plan . . . allow each neighborhood to maintain a distinct sense of place, while improving the sustainability, economic vitality, and quality of life for all residents.

                                  - - - - -

The resources of these two efforts could be combined in a single program that can address the concerns of all Hollywood stakeholders.  The Hollywood Community Plan Update program could work with community stakeholders to define the size and scale of development on each block.  When this is defined the Re-Code LA program could codify it into legal code based on the defined size and scale of development for each block in Hollywood.

This is the definition of a form-based code that Re-Code LA is attempting.  It is what Re-Code LA want to do for downtown LA.  However, there is more reason to do this in Hollywood considering the recent effort to update it's community plan was overturned by the Courts.  Instead of focusing on downtown LA, where there is no lawsuit, why not do it for Hollywood?