A studio apartment costs 304 thousand dollars to build in Venice California.

[shortylickens]

At least thats the way I understand it from this article.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-homeless-housing-venice-20170311-story.html

At those prices I do not think it is physically possible to deal with the homeless situation in southern California. It could also be a testament to government waste, I'm not sure.
I've been reading about this all day and it seems homeless people have had a weird symbiotic relationship with everyone in Venice for many years, but nothing permanent has ever been attempted.

 

[alcoholbob]

What about dormitories for the homeless? You can certainly pack more people in a smaller space that way. But I guess in neither case can you actually force people to actually live there. Some "homeless" people actually do have a place to stay, but still decide to sleep in the streets.

 

[IronWing]

Venice has some of the most expensive real estate in the country. The cost shouldn't be a surprise.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

At least thats the way I understand it from this article.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-homeless-housing-venice-20170311-story.html

At those prices I do not think it is physically possible to deal with the homeless situation in southern California. It could also be a testament to government waste, I'm not sure.
I've been reading about this all day and it seems homeless people have had a weird symbiotic relationship with everyone in Venice for many years, but nothing permanent has ever been attempted.

Yeah you're reading it wrong. They are doing studios, one and two bedroom units, commercial space, green spaces, roof top gardens etc... The cost of 304K per unit includes everything else as well since it will all be a part of the project.

Released Thursday, the proposal incorporates 68 studios and one- and two-bedroom apartments for currently homeless people on a city-owned parking lot along Venice Boulevard between Dell and Pacific avenues, in the middle of one of Los Angeles’ swankiest neighborhoods. Low-income artists and low-wage households would also be allocated 68 units.

.........

In addition to apartments, the plan calls for ground-floor retail shops that also would serve as job-training sites. There would be green space along the canal that bisects the property, a rooftop garden, four onsite property managers and supportive services provided by four full-time case managers.

The original cost estimate to develop the lot — $304,000 a unit — will change depending on the project’s final makeup of living and community space, Dennison said. The financing is still to be decided, but it would include public subsidies.

 

[shortylickens]

What about dormitories for the homeless? You can certainly pack more people in a smaller space that way. But I guess in neither case can you actually force people to actually live there. Some "homeless" people actually do have a place to stay, but still decide to sleep in the streets.

Thats what I've been getting from all the articles and news segments. The real problem with homeless is NOT that these people simply cant find a job, its that they are too degraded mentally to keep themselves out of trouble and working regularly. And/or they have addictions that are completely disabling them from leading normal lives.
I remember the first time I heard about homelessness as an issue my teacher pointed out something in New York. The reason there were so many people on the streets was that a mayor or city council had decided to cut funding to mental hospitals and literally thousands of crazy people were forced out into the world with absolutely no help.
When a later mayor found a way to fund mental hospitals all of the sudden the vast majority of homeless disappeared almost immediately. Apparently L.A. has a similar problem but on a much larger scale and the city officials dont know how to deal with it. Even with a big funding project its not going to be enough. They're just trying to build shelters and not dealing with the core issue of mental instability.

 

[K1052]

The answer to the housing crisis in CA is removing the tools from municipalities and counties to limit density. Restrictive zoning and litigious neighbors have caused the housing crisis by limiting the number of built units to a level dramatically lower than what has been required for decades now. The predictable result is high prices and a housing shortage.

 

[fskimospy]

The answer to the housing crisis in CA is removing the tools from municipalities and counties to limit density. Restrictive zoning and litigious neighbors have caused the housing crisis by limiting the number of built units to a level dramatically lower than what has been required for decades now. The predictable result is high prices and a housing shortage.

YES YES YES.

 

[JSt0rm]

The answer to the housing crisis in CA is removing the tools from municipalities and counties to limit density. Restrictive zoning and litigious neighbors have caused the housing crisis by limiting the number of built units to a level dramatically lower than what has been required for decades now. The predictable result is high prices and a housing shortage.

Nobody wants to see their housing prices go down. Its changing though. We just had an approval for a 92k homes to be built in santa clarita. Its a giant project that is going to help some.

Nobody should be building up the density in venice. Its jam packed now. Same with Santa Monica.

 

[JSt0rm]

more density brings more traffic. You guys dont understand how limited it is now.

 

[K1052]

Nobody wants to see their housing prices go down. Its changing though. We just had an approval for a 92k homes to be built in santa clarita. Its a giant project that is going to help some.

Nobody should be building up the density in venice. Its jam packed now. Same with Santa Monica.

The LA metro probably needs at least several hundred thousand new new units, rental and for sale, like yesterday.

Along major corridors appropriate for transit they absolutely should be amping the density.

 

[K1052]

more density brings more traffic. You guys dont understand how limited it is now.

Build more transit. Lots more.

 

[JSt0rm]

The LA metro probably needs at least several hundred thousand new new units, rental and for sale, like yesterday.

Along major corridors appropriate for transit they absolutely should be amping the density.

Venice is not in a transit corridor. Neither is Santa Monica. They are both serviced by the 405 and the 405 acts like a wall for surface street movement east-west. It's total shit and there are enough people there.

As I said we are amping density but it's complicated.

 

[JSt0rm]

Build more transit. Lots more.

We have light rail into Santa Monica now but that won't service Venice. Things are being built but it's expensive.

 

[K1052]

Venice is not in a transit corridor. Neither is Santa Monica. They are both serviced by the 405 and the 405 acts like a wall for surface street movement east-west. It's total shit and there are enough people there.

As I said we are amping density but it's complicated.

I'm aware of the problems the 405 causes for E-W movements, especially in Santa Monica. I'd probably want to trench it from Willshire to Olympic and reconnect the street grid which can then run transit (Light rail or BRT) over more easily.

 

[K1052]

We have light rail into Santa Monica now but that won't service Venice. Things are being built but it's expensive.

Yes, the Expo line is a good start but it's still kind of hobbled since it's a reused, largely, freight ROW. A lot of the stations are hemmed in by other infrastructure or less than ideal streetscapes.

 

[fskimospy]

We have light rail into Santa Monica now but that won't service Venice. Things are being built but it's expensive.

New York City is massively more dense than LA. It can be done, you just have to do it.

 

[JSt0rm]

New York City is massively more dense than LA. It can be done, you just have to do it.

Yes but the city was designed for it. LA has a sprawl problem. I dont even know if its a problem. LA is huge...

L.A. County has 4,084 square miles. New York City has 304.8 square miles.

http://www.laweekly.com/news/news-flash-la-is-actually-bigger-than-new-york-5122287

 

[OWR88]

Sounds about right. What's the big deal?

 

[sdifox]

more density brings more traffic. You guys dont understand how limited it is now.

More public transit, not more cars. Start slapping big fee to drive into town like London and people will switch to trains.

Absolutly no reason why 83 mi of track is only moving 300k people a day.

 

[fskimospy]

Yes but the city was designed for it. LA has a sprawl problem. I dont even know if its a problem. LA is huge...

L.A. County has 4,084 square miles. New York City has 304.8 square miles.

http://www.laweekly.com/news/news-flash-la-is-actually-bigger-than-new-york-5122287

Right. That’s a policy choice.

 

[FIVR]

venice is super crowded but what about that huge strip of completely undeveloped land that sits north of the Hyperion water treatment facility? That used to be a neighborhood, but they bulldozed it when they built LAX. i'm sure if they developed that land they could fit at least 10,000 units. It might be loud from the planes, but lots of other people live near airports in cities like Tokyo. I'm sure they could charge less for them too. It would be near-beachfront property (some of it actual beachfront property).

 

[fskimospy]

More public transit, not more cars.

Yep. People in LA think traffic can’t be solved but New York moves way more people. To LA’s credit they are trying to build transit.

 

[JSt0rm]

Right. That’s a policy choice.

is it policy? 4000 miles vs 300?

 

[JSt0rm]

venice is super crowded but what about that huge strip of completely undeveloped land that sits north of the Hyperion water treatment facility? That used to be a neighborhood, but they bulldozed it when they built LAX. i'm sure if they developed that land they could fit at least 10,000 units. It might be loud from the planes, but lots of other people live near airports in cities like Tokyo. I'm sure they could charge less for them too. It would be near-beachfront property (some of it actual beachfront property).

https://www.google.com/maps/place/H...65caba944b0d6!8m2!3d33.9251867!4d-118.4307107

not see a bunch of land there

 

[sdifox]

is it policy? 4000 miles vs 300?

Of course it is policy. Especially anti density policies.
Venice Beach

Toronto