Dissecting Twelve Test Sites
I mentioned the city’s Small Lots, Big Impact initiative recently. In a nutshell, the city is partnering with private developers in a test case to redevelop 12 small lots scattered around the city.
While empty lots can, and should, be put to better use than growing weeds and attracting trash, I have concerns.
First, it is no secret that many developers do not play by the rules in Los Angeles. Why the hell should they bother when consequences are so rare?
Second, it is well known that our elected officials are too often implicated in real estate shenanigans (José Huizar, Raymond Chan, and the not-yet-on-trial Curren Price come to mind).
Here are my initial findings on the twelve test-case properties:
This lot is likely to require some hillside excavation, and as of this writing there appears to be no vehicle access due to a retaining wall. I am generally not a fan of much development in canyon areas due to wildfire and landslide risks, but this lot is right on the edge of Hollywood’s less hilly and more built-up streets.
The address is not listed in ZIMAS (the same holds true for several other lots on this list).
According to ZIMAS, this property hasn’t had residents in at least five years. When I tried to dig up code enforcement issues, I found none listed. I tried Googling the address and found a 2012 report of “miscellaneous complaints”. Does that seem odd to anyone else?
Now this is EXACTLY the kind of redevelopment I can get behind: 732 Cochran is a city-owned parking lot (specifically, LADOT Public Parking Lot #614). No empty buildings, abandoned construction, blight, arson, or displacement here - although, as this is already an apartment-oriented neighborhood, I hope the developer includes parking.
Like 732 Cochran, 239 West 86th Place is a city-owned parking lot (LADOT #700). This South LA lot, however, shares a block with both commercial properties and houses.
There was a code complaint in 2023 for “overgrown or excessive vegetation”. Hopefully the future project for this site will receive the same level of care as projects in wealthier neighborhoods.
This long-empty lot stands next to the former site of the East 60th Street Community Youth Center and across the street from a huge parcel where a blighted commercial/industrial building was torn down several years ago. I’m hoping the bigger lot becomes something benefitting the neighborhood, too.
This empty lot is VERY narrow, which will pose design and construction challenges, but lack of width didn’t stop whoever built on the equally skinny lot behind it.
Idea: assemble the building offsite and slide it into place.
Back in 2004, there were plans for an 18-unit apartment building. An existing commercial building was torn down in 2007, but the apartments never came. Let’s hope that finally changes.
This oddly-shaped empty lot is larger than most on this list, on a quiet cul-de-sac with houses. It’ll be interesting to see how the builder uses the space. This is a small cul-de-sac, so let’s hope there’s off-street parking.
Regular readers will already know that LAHD neglected the previous building, a 1911 bungalow, to death. While I’m not particularly worried about some of the sites on this list, I have long had concerns about 1816 Wilton. And I still do. I will be watching this project VERY closely.
Another big, empty lot - this one next to an existing small apartment building on a tree-lined street.
This is a slim, but deep, corner lot in Wilmington, right next door to a small apartment building with a code complaint from 2023 concerning general repair. Wilmington doesn’t often get much attention from the city (heck, some Angelenos don’t even know Wilmington is part of Los Angeles proper), so I have concerns about 505 Broad getting the level of care it deserves.
534 W. 12th appears to be a separate building (likely a garage) behind 536 W. 12th. 536 had proactive code enforcement just last month. Is 536 facing demolition (there is no permit application on file), or is the lot being divided? Hmm.
Anyway:
While I’m glad to see some of the long-empty or under-utilized lots are slated for new construction, I do have concerns about some of them - and I’m a little wary of the initiative as a whole due to the city’s rotten track record with land use corruption.
Consequently, I will be keeping an eye on all twelve test sites. I’m really hoping that all twelve projects have a positive impact, but I know all too well that there’s a good chance something could go sideways with any of them.