Masterplanning! Political Development, De-Political Design (part 1)

by Tony Chavira

About eight months ago, an architectural designer from our office in downtown Los Angeles was sent on a mission to the Building Department. A developer with a large lot of land near Grand Avenue and 30th Street asked us to begin putting together conceptual designs and (as you would expect) we needed a TON of information from the city. We had this grand vision of pitching a project that would be practically 100% sustainable, mixed-use, and affordable. It was going to be great.

But the moment our designer reached the desk, he was struck by the unwillingness of city employees to provide the research we needed. The response he got was practically unanimous: “This project’s too big. Get a city council member on your side and then we’ll see about that research you need.” A city councilmember? Really? I mean, we’re an architectural firm; we’re just doing our jobs here. We don’t want to program a building that isn’t going to be well thought-out, or else what’s the point? It’s a Catch-22: we can’t provide prospective ideas for a smart, integrative development without the research, but we can’t get the research without presenting a prospective plan to the city with a smart, integrative development. The sad part is that this isn’t the first time this has happened in Los Angeles County and parts beyond (I’m looking at you, city of Santa Ana).

Why so many politics in the city of Los Angeles? Who woke up one day and decided that putting together projects would involve lobbying with politicians, urban planners, architects, the community, and local industries? When exactly did someone decide that more bureaucracy was needed when working with the design community? Exactly who was keeping the information out of our designer’s hands? The L.A. city politicians? The urban designers at the CRA and Building Department? Or was it our fault for not just approaching Jan Perry’s Office from the onset?

Before I cast the rallying cry to De-Politicize the Design Process! let me clarify which process I’m talking about here. I actually brought this up at a dinner with my fellow FourStory staff writers and editors, and Gilda Haas (UCLA professor, smart urban planner, champion of the disenfranchised, and affordable housing advocate, who also happens to be Gary Phillips’s wife) brought up something really important: developers shouldn’t try to build up anything behind the community’s back. I’d like to think that we were gathering research before our developer went in front of the Neighborhood Development Council, fully prepared to be transparent and adjust his plans as necessary. But who knows if that was really the case.

Let me be clear: I’m not talking about the politicization of the development process. There really should be a lot of oversight for developers. Oversight will make sure that Los Angeles isn’t overdeveloped, that the proposed development will follow the CRA’s redevelopment plans and fit in with plans set in federal empowerment zones, and show the community a good record for civic improvements. Critics often talk about the overly-political nature of development in Los Angeles, particularly regarding closed-door “insider deals” between politicians and developers. But this scenario shouldn’t be viewed as “over-politicizing” the process of development. Instead, critics need to think about the prospect of increasing the number of stakeholders who want to see good development. Not just developers and politicians, but urban and transportation planners (local, state and federal), community advocates, non-profits, local businesses, anyone and everyone who might be effected in any way by the development.

Unfortunately, Los Angeles has a really bad public track record here; but most of the developments that have confronted these issues have been solely developer-driven. With little to no real community support, of course the confrontation with community leaders is going to be a difficult one. It’s a sad situation when the community needs to lobby their own politicians to defend themselves, but increasing the number of stakeholders in the process will force developers to heed the importance of the redevelopment plan as a guideline for how to work with all of these entities. They might even look like the good guy (which in a lot of cases, they are), and when the community loves your development you’re always more likely to make more money and see the value of the land increase.

I also don’t mean “De-Politicize the Urban Design Process!” Urban planning—like any other field of planning—requires a ton of research. What’s good for the community? What will work? Where should there be density? Where should parks go? Where should public buildings go? How will traffic flow through the streets? How will foot traffic flow through sidewalks and walkways? Where will people bike? What are the national trends? What does the community want? If I put Building A on Lot B, what will that do to increase profitability for local businesses? The hardest part is that this stuff changes all the time. What was once 1st Street in East L.A. is now a “transit corridor.” What was once San Pedro manufacturing is increasingly residential. What was once an open space for development is now Century City.

As an urban planner, the only way you’re going to find the ongoing answer to all of these things is by working directly with the community while coordinating with your bosses, the politicians. Sometimes your research is totally irrefutable and cannot bend to political will. No one’s going to knock over the Watts Towers and put up a strip mall. They isn’t going anywhere, so you need to plan around them. But in most cases, Los Angeles is amorphous ... you can put anything just about anywhere. But to keep development from turning Los Angeles into that first shot from Blade Runner, you need to have a good plan for how people will live in these communities. Essentially, urban planners don’t need to politicize their jobs. They’re already part of the system of stakeholders, and that comes with certain political implications. Urban designers are almost like research lobbyists ... a political face for an apolitical design community.

So no, I’m not talking about de-politicizing urban design. When I scream “De-Politicize the Design Process!” I’m solely talking about the architectural design process ... in fact, taking the interaction with bureaucracy and politics right out of the architect’s job description.

All we wanted was research, a little knowledge, and we were shot down. Hard. It’s not our job to approach the community directly for feedback from the onset; we’re not the developer. It’s not our job to do comprehensive landscape research and develop a community plan before we design a structure; we’re not city planners and urban designers. We just needed research to begin designing something vague and conceptual for people to react to, and to do that we needed to reach out for help from our urban design and engineering comrades at the Building Department.

But lo, our comrades have shunned us. We were betrayed.

Next week, the depth of the betrayal and what it means for architecture and urban planning.