Here's another Tip of the Iceberg for you...In the City of LA, only 8% of the land is zoned for industrial and manufacturing uses out of 465 square miles which is only 37.2 square miles. It sounds like a lot, but of the 8%, only half is now utilized as industrial and manufacturing - the rest having been allowed to be used for other uses like residential, retail, etc. So, now, we're at 18.6 square miles or only 4% of the second largest city* in the US. Is that the right level to be at to create a sustainable City?
Recently, there has been a movement to allow for more industrial zoned land to be converted to non-industrial uses. This seems to be stemming from the Central City Association and their push for more conversion in the downtown area of industrial zoned properties into residential (and other) uses. There is some concern over the job/housing balance that is essential in a truly livable community. once land is converted from industrial, it almost never goes back to it.
Who are CCA's members these days? Business or residential developers? Should we as a City be creating new zones or removing existing ones which would in turn that take away the opportunity for the job creation that comes with modern industries (not many smoke stacks are built these days; industrial can mean research and development from apparel to media to high tech components)?
*True, the measure of size is based on population, not land area. But we're pretty big in size, too.
3 comments:
What's more, it's foolish to allow massive conversions of industrial land to nonindustrial uses when the industrial occupancy rate in Los Angeles County is something like 98%.
A concerted program of industrial space rehabilitation would generate far more economic benefit to the region than further loft conversions.
Solution:
Annex Burbank & Use Eminent Domain
:)
Oy. Don't get me started on this one.
Post a Comment