MasterPlanning! Crammed Together in Utopia

by Tony Chavira

When I think of the word "Utopia," I have these grand images of a shining city on a hill with happy, productive citizens, towering, ultra-modern buildings, and flying cars. This shining city is full of people from all walks of life, living in a well-designed urban layout which includes parks, public utilities, energy, and public transport for everyone. Technology and public policy work symbiotically to provide the best conditions for everyone from the plastic surgeon to the ditch digger to the City Controller.

This was the idea behind a housing development designed by Le Corbusier (yes, THE Le Corbusier), who thought that a strikingly beautiful building that maximized occupancy by minimizing actual living space was the ideal for the utopian future. In the end, his name as an architect outweighed the opinions of the urban planners and he built absolutely beautiful slums. Trust me, they're gorgeous.

Architects and planners in the 20th century, understanding the inherent genius of Le Corbusier's design, figured that crunching as many people into a small place as possible could work fantastically as long as the building itself was really pretty. Therefore, having an ultra-modern building design must mean "Utopia!" Living 20 feet away from your neighbors might promote a more friendly, sharing atmosphere, who knows?

Okay, we all know what will come of stuffing tons of people in a high-rise, even if it inspires ooohs and ahhhs artistically. Architects in the second wave of modern design were trained in true modernism; that is, using a ton of research to figure out what kinds of spaces and buildings work best for the people in them. The ultra-modern St. Louis's Pruitt-Igoe Project was supposed to be a "utopia" for low-income residents in particular. What happened? Well, the developers cut and run, and it became a massive slum community that took on a street justice style that even the St. Louis police feared. [There's a great photo of Pruitt-Igoe here - ed.]

The Bronx in New York is full of "triumphs of architecture and development" over insightful urban planning. Public housing in London and Paris took on the same "hyper-modern" Le Corbusier slant and therefore also became slums. In fact, the city of Los Angeles built the Pico Aliso Village in East L.A. to cater to low-income residents in the 1940s. Quickly, the close-quartered design of the space left the building in decay, and guess what happened next? I mean, Le Corbusier had made these mistakes in the early 20th century. In fact, there were calls for housing reform in London even earlier, at the end of the 19th century.

So the City of Los Angeles has a "great" idea, as reported in the L.A. Times! You guessed it, my friend: planners set forth a proposal to build a large building in Downtown L.A. with units as "large" as 250 square feet. That's about enough space to fit a tractor for your in-house farming needs, or one African elephant maybe, if the roofs are high enough. The planners brag that you can fit just a little more than a Hummer. Yeah, they brag about it. Are we really doomed to repeat history again?

Right elephant, wrong hummer.
photos: Derek Nutley (l), Ray Forester (r)

The best part about this deal is that the developers "negotiated" great parking terms with the City of Los Angeles: if they provide affordable units in these buildings, they don't have to provide parking for those units. So what the city is essentially saying is, "Any money you'll save on your dinky apartment will be spent in a $150 a month parking space downtown." Mayor Villaraigosa used to care about this issue, allocating $100 million to low-income housing projects his first two years, but he didn't give any cash this year. No surprise, this is the year of the tiny units. And you thought it was the the Year of the Pig.

Arguments supporting this development are pretty lame: "New York, Paris and San Francisco already have them!" Guess what cities also have well-coordinated public transportation systems? (Hint: Los Angeles isn't on that list.) All history lessons aside, developers and the city will ultimately lose money on short-sighted projects such as these: they depreciate the value of existing and surrounding property (aka Downtown L.A.), suck up city resources, and create legislative problems later when the surrounding area requires renovation (which it will, mark my words). Take a lesson from history: hiring a good urban planner before beginning your plan for "utopian community housing" is smarter in the long run.

Besides, developers and the City couldn't be deliberately trying to create slums. City Controller Laura Chick has an Undergraduate Degree in History from UCLA, so I hope this article hits home for her. I mean, didn't she ever live in the dorms?