So, here's what's happening in the Pacific Palisades right now:
A pro-development organization has sued Gov. Gavin Newsom over an executive order blocking duplexes in Los Angeles neighborhoods stricken by January’s wildfires.
Newsom issued his order in July in response to lobbying from property owners in the Pacific Palisades, the coastal L.A. community that was largely destroyed in the blazes. Palisades residents argued that allowing duplexes and spitting [sic] lots into two parcels would undermine the neighborhood’s character and worsen evacuation efforts in the event of future disasters. Following the governor’s order, all the jurisdictions affected — the cities of Los Angeles, Malibu and Pasadena and L.A. County — banned SB 9 rebuilds in high-risk fire areas. The suit includes each local government as a defendant as well.
This is interesting.
On the one hand, there is, of course, a logic to not allowing too much density and too many close-together houses in an area prone to wildfires and where there are only so many roads leaving the community. But on the other hand, it's not clear that this is really what it's all about.
The counterargument, from groups like the one suing, is that this is actually about perpetuating exclusivity, and perhaps even about "cleansing" the neighborhood of households who don't have the means to rebuild in a way that suits the "character" of the place. Duplexes = rental homes. And smaller lots = less expensive houses.
So, which is it?
My view is that this should be looked at from an overall population standpoint, and not from a housing type standpoint. According to 2023 census data for zip code 90272, the Pacific Palisades had a population of approximately 21,438 residents. This is a decline of just over 10% over the last 23 years. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau Decennial Census 2000 & ACS 2023)
On top of this, the number of households has also declined from ~9,319 in 2000 to 8,282 in 2023. So by all accounts, the area is shrinking and becoming less dense. There are fewer residents and fewer occupied homes. This is a directionally good thing if your primary concern is evacuation congestion and the safety of residents.
But then, what's the concern with duplexes and smaller lots? Is the concern that the area might regain its previous population and household count? Is the objective to continue shrinking and reach some more optimal set of numbers? Should there only be 15,000 residents, or maybe even 10,000?
Because if that's the case, then I think a more effective policy would be: "This neighborhood can only support X number of residents and Y number of households, because otherwise people can't evacuate quickly enough in the case of emergency. Once we reach these limits, we will stop processing building permits for all housing types."
When a policy only restricts specific housing types, as opposed to more directly addressing a stated problem, it suggests to me that the stated problem is not actually the primary concern.
Cover photo by Beau Horyza on Unsplash
I have written about Le Corbusier’s Cité Radieuse in Marseille many times before on the blog. It is one of the most influential multi-unit buildings of the 20th century. For better and for worse, it inspired a generation of architects. But up until this afternoon, I had yet to actually see it in person. Now that I have, here are 3 takeaways.
So, here's what's happening in the Pacific Palisades right now:
A pro-development organization has sued Gov. Gavin Newsom over an executive order blocking duplexes in Los Angeles neighborhoods stricken by January’s wildfires.
Newsom issued his order in July in response to lobbying from property owners in the Pacific Palisades, the coastal L.A. community that was largely destroyed in the blazes. Palisades residents argued that allowing duplexes and spitting [sic] lots into two parcels would undermine the neighborhood’s character and worsen evacuation efforts in the event of future disasters. Following the governor’s order, all the jurisdictions affected — the cities of Los Angeles, Malibu and Pasadena and L.A. County — banned SB 9 rebuilds in high-risk fire areas. The suit includes each local government as a defendant as well.
This is interesting.
On the one hand, there is, of course, a logic to not allowing too much density and too many close-together houses in an area prone to wildfires and where there are only so many roads leaving the community. But on the other hand, it's not clear that this is really what it's all about.
The counterargument, from groups like the one suing, is that this is actually about perpetuating exclusivity, and perhaps even about "cleansing" the neighborhood of households who don't have the means to rebuild in a way that suits the "character" of the place. Duplexes = rental homes. And smaller lots = less expensive houses.
So, which is it?
My view is that this should be looked at from an overall population standpoint, and not from a housing type standpoint. According to 2023 census data for zip code 90272, the Pacific Palisades had a population of approximately 21,438 residents. This is a decline of just over 10% over the last 23 years. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau Decennial Census 2000 & ACS 2023)
On top of this, the number of households has also declined from ~9,319 in 2000 to 8,282 in 2023. So by all accounts, the area is shrinking and becoming less dense. There are fewer residents and fewer occupied homes. This is a directionally good thing if your primary concern is evacuation congestion and the safety of residents.
But then, what's the concern with duplexes and smaller lots? Is the concern that the area might regain its previous population and household count? Is the objective to continue shrinking and reach some more optimal set of numbers? Should there only be 15,000 residents, or maybe even 10,000?
Because if that's the case, then I think a more effective policy would be: "This neighborhood can only support X number of residents and Y number of households, because otherwise people can't evacuate quickly enough in the case of emergency. Once we reach these limits, we will stop processing building permits for all housing types."
When a policy only restricts specific housing types, as opposed to more directly addressing a stated problem, it suggests to me that the stated problem is not actually the primary concern.
Cover photo by Beau Horyza on Unsplash
I have written about Le Corbusier’s Cité Radieuse in Marseille many times before on the blog. It is one of the most influential multi-unit buildings of the 20th century. For better and for worse, it inspired a generation of architects. But up until this afternoon, I had yet to actually see it in person. Now that I have, here are 3 takeaways.
Le Corbusier's Cité Radieuse in Marseille is, as I have mentioned before, one of the most important and influential multi-family buildings of the 20th century. As an architecture student, this is one of those buildings that you get indoctrinated with, so I was excited to visit it for the first time with Neat B in 2022 on what was our second visit to Marseille. We're big fans of the city. Here is the post I wrote following that visit.
Today, let's look at one of the actual suites, which is currently listed for sale through Architecture de Collection. But first, a reminder: The complex was originally constructed between 1948-1952 and was meant to serve as a new housing model for post-war France. In 2016, the building was designated a UNESCO World Heritage Site and, today, you'll sometimes find things like a Chanel fashion show taking place on its rooftop.
The suite that is for sale is Type E, which is about 100 m2. It has 3 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms. A balcony. And a view of the Mediterranean. It is listed for 650 000 €, which works out 6,500 € per square meter. For Toronto readers, this is right now the equivalent of C$965,485 or about C$897 per square foot. The monthly copropriété charge is about 300 € and the annual property taxes are about 2000 €.
Does this seem reasonable or expensive to you?
For more info, click here.
Photo by Louis Charron on Unsplash
The corridors throughout the building were thought of as “streets” in a vertical village. Because of this, each street had a mailbox and each front door came equipped with an elaborate delivery system. The large curvy thing pictured above was for general deliveries (mostly food I’m guessing). And the smaller door below was for ice block deliveries (i.e. refrigeration). In both cases, these doors could be accessed from inside the kitchen.
The two “streets” in the middle of the building were dedicated to commercial uses. And by being in the middle of the building, they were equidistant from residents living either above or below. I was told that when the building first opened in the 1950s, these streets were actually quite successful — filled with everything from bakeries to grocery stores. So you can imagine people running deliveries up and down to the other streets. But that quickly fell off as the retailing landscape developed in Marseille and in France. Today, this portion of the building houses mostly offices, art galleries, and specialty boutiques. Though there remains a widely-used 21-room hotel (pictured above).
To fully appreciate what the Cité Radieuse meant for housing in France, you kind of have to imagine what the rest of its stock was like at that time. The introduction of duplex and dual aspect units with modern kitchens and bathrooms and with views of the sea, represented meaningful progress at the time. But it is interesting to see how much ceiling heights have changed over the years. They’re really low here — well under 8 feet. And that is probably its greatest Achilles’ heel today.
If ever you happen to find yourself in Marseille, I would encourage a visit to the Cité Radieuse. Many of the things we do today started in this building. And there are some other ideas here that might also be worth bringing back.
Le Corbusier's Cité Radieuse in Marseille is, as I have mentioned before, one of the most important and influential multi-family buildings of the 20th century. As an architecture student, this is one of those buildings that you get indoctrinated with, so I was excited to visit it for the first time with Neat B in 2022 on what was our second visit to Marseille. We're big fans of the city. Here is the post I wrote following that visit.
Today, let's look at one of the actual suites, which is currently listed for sale through Architecture de Collection. But first, a reminder: The complex was originally constructed between 1948-1952 and was meant to serve as a new housing model for post-war France. In 2016, the building was designated a UNESCO World Heritage Site and, today, you'll sometimes find things like a Chanel fashion show taking place on its rooftop.
The suite that is for sale is Type E, which is about 100 m2. It has 3 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms. A balcony. And a view of the Mediterranean. It is listed for 650 000 €, which works out 6,500 € per square meter. For Toronto readers, this is right now the equivalent of C$965,485 or about C$897 per square foot. The monthly copropriété charge is about 300 € and the annual property taxes are about 2000 €.
Does this seem reasonable or expensive to you?
For more info, click here.
Photo by Louis Charron on Unsplash
The corridors throughout the building were thought of as “streets” in a vertical village. Because of this, each street had a mailbox and each front door came equipped with an elaborate delivery system. The large curvy thing pictured above was for general deliveries (mostly food I’m guessing). And the smaller door below was for ice block deliveries (i.e. refrigeration). In both cases, these doors could be accessed from inside the kitchen.
The two “streets” in the middle of the building were dedicated to commercial uses. And by being in the middle of the building, they were equidistant from residents living either above or below. I was told that when the building first opened in the 1950s, these streets were actually quite successful — filled with everything from bakeries to grocery stores. So you can imagine people running deliveries up and down to the other streets. But that quickly fell off as the retailing landscape developed in Marseille and in France. Today, this portion of the building houses mostly offices, art galleries, and specialty boutiques. Though there remains a widely-used 21-room hotel (pictured above).
To fully appreciate what the Cité Radieuse meant for housing in France, you kind of have to imagine what the rest of its stock was like at that time. The introduction of duplex and dual aspect units with modern kitchens and bathrooms and with views of the sea, represented meaningful progress at the time. But it is interesting to see how much ceiling heights have changed over the years. They’re really low here — well under 8 feet. And that is probably its greatest Achilles’ heel today.
If ever you happen to find yourself in Marseille, I would encourage a visit to the Cité Radieuse. Many of the things we do today started in this building. And there are some other ideas here that might also be worth bringing back.
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
