Even taken as a whole, it is increasingly clear that the Valley suffers from a deepening shortage of housing, particularly at the affordable level. An analysis of the various housing elements required by each city in the State of California by students at Pepperdine's School of Public Policy suggests that most Valley communities are already well short of their project housing targets.
The current housing element of the Los Angeles General Plan anticipates the addition of 60,280 housing units citywide between 1998 and 2005 with nearly 23,000 projected for the San Fernando Valley. The other four cities in the Valley account for another 8,000 housing units.
Our analysis suggests that significantly less than the needed 31,000 housing units have been built. While the numbers are not available for Los Angeles, we know that Burbank was only able to complete 41% of its 1994 RHNA (1,221/2,970 housing units) and San Fernando only built 16% of its previous RHNA (50/306 housing units).
Aside from existing residents' anti-growth sentiments, the biggest constraint for these communities is the availability of vacant land for new housing development. The City of San Fernando, for example, only has enough vacant land zoned for 57 additional units, but needs 201 units. Glendale only has vacant land zoned for 3,110 units, yet has need of 5,783 units. This means that the growth in housing will have to be accommodated through revisions to the General Plans and through redevelopment activities. These would be targeted at increasing permitted and zoned land use densities in these communities, moving them closer to the maximum levels allowed by existing zoning ordinances. Both of these require time and the ability to endure a considerable amount of public process.
Clearly these communities, and the Valley portion of Los Angeles, are likely to fall well short of meeting their housing goals. Even if the Valley only grows at the 7.8% rate projected for Los Angeles County overall,31 the Valley's overall population would still increase by 131,000 people, from 1.69 million in 2000 to 1.82 million in 2010. In a best case scenario, the SCAG Regional Housing Needs Assessment would accommodate only 87,569 of these new residents—assuming that these goals were fully attained by the end of the decade. This all points to a serious and ongoing shortfall in the availability of new housing in the San Fernando Valley.
Implications of a New Housing Shortfall
What does such a shortfall in the production of new housing mean to the Valley region? One of the key results has been soaring prices, a trend that has been particularly marked in the last year or so. Although good for current homeowners, this situation restricts access to home ownership for many current and future Valley residents.
This threatens the very essence of the Valley's suburban dream of a community of homeowners. The Valley could end up increasing the divide between an owner class—largely white and older—and a renter class group of residents, heavily Latino and younger, who are no longer able to purchase a home.
Finally, there is a distinct threat to the future viability of the Valley's already congested transportation network. If housing units are not available, more and more people will have to commute from outside the region. This produces transportation challenges. The current Regional Transportation Plan prepared by SCAG shows significant transportation bottlenecks within the Valley. Figure 18 shows that the Valley already had significant congestion problems in 1997.
Transit Bottlenecks
A close examination of Figure 19 depicting this same area in 2025 projects tremendous increases in the congestion in the San Fernando Valley region. Nearly every roadway is congested at least half the time, and many more than three-fourths of the time. This has serious implications for the quality of life, both for Valley residents and for those in the surrounding regions.
What Communities Can, and Are, Doing to Deal with the Housing Crisis—BIDS, Urban Villages and the Future of the Valley
There seems to be little room for optimism in finding solutions to problems underlying the shortage—increasing prices of houses in many areas, overcrowding in others, the restrictions on growth on the periphery, and a pre-existing lack of neighborhood focus. These threaten to make the Valley an increasingly dysfunctional, and often less livable, jumble of disjointed communities.
There are alternatives to the current patterns. "The community plans we have now don't go forward," argues longtime Valley developer Jim Brewer, Vice President for Construction at Spiegel Development, "we need a vision." The key question becomes, what is the most appropriate vision. One of the more appealing ideas would be to, in some senses, return to the original concept of Los Angeles as an archipelago of communities—each with its own vital center. This notion of urban villages, as it is now evolving, suggests that dense development, including multi-use centers, is gaining credence nationally, and could evolve in the Valley as well.
The Los Angeles area, and the Valley in particular, are ideal places to test and develop this concept. Despite its association with the term sprawl, Los Angeles is actually one of the densest cities in the country—more so even than the New York area. It is simply a heavily populated region whose residents also happen to spread out over a wide area, including places like the Valley.32
The urban village approach provides several critical solutions to the problems that emerge from this reality. First, it deals with the core issue of increasing housing stock, but without impinging on the fundamental single-family nature of most Valley neighborhoods. Second, it provides a locational focus for communities, that reduces the need for extra trips that can increase congestion. Third, it provides the Valley something that has been missing from many post-World War II suburbs, a sense of place, and of community identity.
This last notion of the urban village may be the most critical. Addressing the development of cities throughout the ages and loss of a sacred geography, theologian John S. Dunne has noted: "What has happened, it seems, is that the hope of consorting with the gods has been given up and been replaced with the simple hope of consorting with human beings."33
The development of urban villages is an attempt to, at least, fulfill the desire of associating and/or mingling with other human beings in an aesthetically pleasing, functionally whole, safe neighborhood center. Urban villages are designed to be neighborhoods or a series of neighborhoods that are:
We believe this approach is largely mistaken, and is likely to be counterproductive since people generally do not appreciate having solutions imposed on them from above. Equally important, this essentially elitist notion vastly underestimates the potential for both market and grass-roots forces to address the problems facing the Valley. It doesn't seem wise to have the character and texture of our neighborhoods dictated by a remote centralized authority, using one-size-fits-all assumptions.
Despite complaints by the media, academic and political leaders, most Valley residents seem to be optimistic, having more positive views of their communities than might be supposed—this in contrast to views of the City of Los Angeles. Of those surveyed, a full 71% responded that their community's quality of life was "excellent or good" and 85% were "very or fairly optimistic about the future of their community."35
Are the people ready to accept change? It is often assumed that most neighborhoods oppose any kind of development, particularly housing. Yet the survey found that 73% support "more office and industrial development if it creates more jobs;" 76% for "more single-family homes;" 88% for "affordable housing for seniors and the poor;" 49% supportive of "more condominiums and apartments" and about half (51%) of the respondents favored "housing located over businesses on main streets;"36 with 40% opposing such mixed-use housing.37
Clearly there is sizable element that is inclined to support denser development, if it also improved the area's quality of life. As to adding more "shops and restaurants in neighborhoods" 57% supported it, 39% were against it. "A majority of respondents, 64%, also favored stronger sign and design regulations, with only 26% opposing.38 The survey data suggests that there is a positive constituency for making significant changes and improvements in the Valley's neighborhoods. In conducting interviews with the wide range of Valley stakeholders, we have found a growing willingness to tackle the various housing and neighborhood problems on a grass-roots level.
We have also found that many business people and developers believe that there is a considerable market incentive to construct the kinds of denser, more village-like environments—the very kind that many residents would like to see. This does require vision, changes in thinking and in policy.
"The Valley is becoming an urban area," suggests developer Jerry Katell, who recently constructed 300 apartment units near Warner Center. "It's an urban area whose growth can be accommodated by increasing density along the key corridors. You can do that without taking out a single family unit."
Perhaps the most evolved tangible efforts towards more clustered development can be seen in the growth of BIDs (Business Improvement Districts) throughout the Valley. In theory, the creation of BIDs only deals with one aspect of village building, the cultivation of a commercial core, extending out into the public spaces. But this does represents a powerful first step. The existence of thriving commercial villages, such as Sherman Oaks or Studio City, suggests that Valley residents appreciate and enjoy clustered, pedestrian-friendly development. At the same time, it can, and we believe will, lay the foundation for the future evolution of housing alternatives close to, or adjacent to, these thriving areas.
Now, even at this early stage of village development, it is critical to note that one size does not fit all. The efforts underway to create centers for communities and neighborhoods, while sharing some basic implementation strategies in common (e.g. signage, facade improvements, security and community festivals) are varied according to the type of identity the community would like to create.
Creating identity is a tricky business. Throughout the San Fernando Valley, those responsible for managing the BIDs are faced with developing (often in conjunction with a consultant and/or board of directors) an understanding and vision of the past, present and future of their BID areas, and then communicating that understanding to others (residents, desired businesses, realtors and developers). In speaking with BID managers one can detect a present, but often unspoken tension in developing a specific identity, especially where little or none had existed before.
Individual communities within the San Fernando Valley are trying to create an identity and at the same time better understand themselves in the context of the larger picture of Los Angeles. This includes the ethnically and culturally based historical aesthetics and values of each area.
The key to understanding these efforts lies in appreciating their diversity. An area such as the Burbank Village BID has natural advantages, being located close to major entertainment industry employment centers. "The resources here," suggests BID manager Stephanie Pillard "would be used to show that this is a funky, fun area to live in and attract young professionals with some upscale housing and resume festivals in an actual downtown."39
Other BID-urban village efforts target a more middle-class homeowner constituency. The Canoga Park BID, which is a property-owner based BID managed by Mary Paterson, covers 12 blocks from Topanga Canyon Blvd. to Canoga Ave. and from Gault St. to Wyandotte St., including approximately 270 property owners and 300 businesses. The effort here has been to rehabilitate and enhance the old commercial core along Sherman Way—anchored by the rebuilt Madrid Theater—by improving landscaping, boosting security and marketing the area.
This village-building activity has won the support of a wide variety of local players, including the Chamber of Commerce, the Historical Society, local churches and charities and the police department. The emphasis is on cultivation of a core district providing needed amenities and retail opportunities—and around which the community can identify.
Similar efforts are taking place throughout the Valley. Susan Levi manages five different BIDs including Van Nuys, Sherman Oaks, Encino, Reseda and Northridge. In many of these areas unique village environments have evolved, at least in terms of retail. Some, according to Levi, may now be ready to enter the stage of bringing in mixed-use housing. Sherman Oaks, for example, is now considering adding senior housing to its village area.
To an outside observer, the efforts of these BIDs may seem relatively modest—a festival here, a few pedestrian benches there, and a store where there once was a vacant lot. But, these initiatives actually represent the beginnings of new neighborhood-based collaborations. The sense of a greater community blends with meeting the Valley's need for more focused, landintensive development.
The next stage of this process, the key to developing urban villages and addressing the region's future needs, will require more ambitious steps. Interestingly, two places where this appears furthest along is in precisely that part of the region plagued with the most crowded housing and demonstrated short-falls—the northeast Valley.
Perhaps the best case in point lies in the City of San Fernando. Like Burbank, San Fernando has the unique advantage of itself being an urban village—a small compact city—and being the master of its own fate. But beyond the advantage of self governance, which in no way should be downplayed, "in San Fernando you can make an impact," notes developer Severyn Aszkenazy, "I usually stay out of L.A."
The City of San Fernando, he adds, has particular assets as "the first town of the Valley." It is coherent socially, and has a sense of its own history. The existence of a historic downtown core represents an enormous potential asset.
But perhaps most of all, the City has a leadership keenly focused on improving both the housing stock and urban core of its tiny 2.4 square mile domain. Some of the improvements have come about because the area appeals to people attracted to a good quality of life and relatively affordable housing. It is a city of younger people, and a city of owners, with 50.1% of the City's population falling between the ages of 20 and 54, with a full 25.7% between the ages of 20 and 34 years.40 Seventy-two percent of the City of San Fernando's owner-occupied housing is valued between $100,000 and $249,999.41
Jose Pulido, City Administrator, says that the City of San Fernando is "changing from a pass through community to a bedroom community." Improvements in the downtown core, he suggests, are a critical part of that transition.
A good portion of this change began nearly two years ago when the City secured $1 million through MTA to do streetscapes, and in January 2002 when they applied for a $150,000 Downtown Rebound Grant to provide affordable housing in the area of Maclay, Truman and San Fernando along corridors.
One proposed plan would include light industrial below and lofts above, which would be adaptive overtime so that they could be used for either offices or housing. The developer would like to repeat the process on two other blocks as well.
If successful, the San Fernando example could present an intriguing model for other communities throughout the Valley. Although cities outside Los Angeles may have a leg up in terms of appropriate planning and relative lack of regulatory delays, such efforts may not be at all impossible, as we may already be seeing in the community of Panorama City.
Related Links
Karin Lane (MPP '05) is director of the Prevention of Mother-to-Child Transmission Program of AMPATH, which runs 23 HIV/AIDS clinics in Kenya.
Connect With Us: