Tag Archives: mixed use

‘Round Glendale: West Wilson Ave

Our inaugural look at development patterns in Glendale starts with W Wilson Ave, which runs from Brand Blvd, Glendale’s main street, to San Fernando Rd, which forms the border with Los Angeles and has a decidedly more industrial aesthetic.

For readers outside SoCal, Brand Blvd is Glendale’s main commercial street, home to everything from Glendale’s small skyscraper district to car dealerships to Rick Caruso’s wildly successful Americana at Brand, along with a wide variety of local businesses. Glendale’s early planners put a stunning view of the Verdugo Mountains to the north, and later planners in Los Angeles anchored the view to the south with the Library Tower. Brand serves as the west-east dividing line in the city, and it’s here we’ll start our journey down W Wilson Ave – down indeed, as this entire part of Glendale slopes gently west towards the LA River.

Downtown Glendale

Well, we’ll almost start at Brand. I’m going to cheat, and start one block east at Maryland, in order to offer up a couple more buildings. First up is the Maryland Hotel, one of only a few pre-war (World War 2, that is) multifamily buildings we’ll see. How do we know it’s pre-war? Fire escapes and no parking!

IMG_2923

Kitty corner to that is a construction site, future home of the Laemmle Lofts – a mixed-use development of 42 apartments, a restaurant, and a 5-screen movie theater.

IMG_2922

Across from that on the south side, there’s a one-story commercial building housing some restaurants and medical offices.

IMG_2924

This side of the block has a nice mid-block pedestrian court leading to The Exchange, one of the oldest developments of the “new” downtown.

IMG_2920

On the northeast corner of Brand and Wilson, there’s a Jewelry Mart in an older one-story commercial building, fitting since Glendale is the Jewel City.

IMG_2919

There’s another set of older one-story buildings across Brand, on the north side of Wilson, with small retail spaces that are the perfect fit for local and niche businesses. Los Angeles in general has a wealth of this type of space; let’s hope the commercial construction market picks up so that rents don’t start to rise too much.

IMG_2918

The building at far right is currently vacant; it used to be a Staples but apparently before that it was a Woolworth’s.

IMG_2927

On the south side of Wilson, stretching from Brand to Orange, is a big, bold symbol of the new downtown Glendale: The Brand Apartments.

IMG_2925

There’s a lot to talk about here, so let’s take a closer look. First off, let me say that I love this building. I think it looks great. Since it’s got frontage on Brand, which is by far Glendale’s highest-demand retail street, the retail filled up almost instantly with a Chipotle and a Tender Greens. They may not be your cup of tea but established brands that can pay higher rents are what you’re gonna get in new retail more often than not. The mix of businesses in the older building across the street is a reminder of the importance of having some old buildings. Of course, let’s not forget that if you don’t have any new buildings today, you won’t have any old buildings tomorrow.

Here’s a shot of The Brand showing its neighbor to the south, the 20-story Glendale City Center office building. I’m told the zoning at The Brand would have allowed for another 20-story building, but the market for high-rise residential just isn’t there.

IMG_2926

Here it is looking southeast back towards Brand.

IMG_2928

The next block west is the second part of the same development, and again, I think they did a fantastic job.

IMG_2929

The horizontal elements break up the façade nicely, the vertical stone-faced element is a beautiful accent, and the orange support is a nod to the first building that ties things together without being repetitive. The orange accents are also a nod to Orange St, which runs between the two buildings, and now has one of the more urban vistas in Glendale.

IMG_2930

Note how the second floor is cantilevered out over the sidewalk, with the balconies projecting further. Here’s another shot showing the second building doing that.

IMG_2913

A reliable source tells me that the edge of the second floor projection is at the property line. I like the effect; it creates a wider sidewalk at street level, but doesn’t make the street room feel any wider, so it still feels like a downtown.

The north side of the street here is another block of small, older one-story commercial buildings, home to a mix of small restaurants and retail.

IMG_2912

A Big 5, super convenient if you’re in need of outdoor supplies, takes us to Central on the south side, with the north side being a parking lot.

IMG_2911

The northwest corner of Wilson and Central is another strip mall, while the southwest corner is currently under construction with another mixed-use development.

IMG_2908

Development in this area is governed by the Glendale Downtown Specific Plan, designed to encourage mixed-use development – the “18-hour city” as official plans call it. The zoning for this area is shown below.

downtownSP

The zoning regulations of interest to readers are summarized below:

DSPchart

Note that the zones with the highest density, DSP/BC-B and DSP/BC-C, are occupied by The Brand apartments and Glendale City Center, but there’s a lot of area with 4-6 stories by right still available. Parking requirements are one spot for singles and 1-bedroom units, two spots for all others, and one guest spot for every 10 units for projects of 10 or more units. This probably sounds like a lot to many readers, though it’s less than required elsewhere.

Vineyard – Central to Columbus

Past here, we’re out of the Downtown Glendale Specific Plan and into West Glendale, or Vineyard if you want to get particular about it, and development changes to smaller scale, all residential buildings. If you haven’t already, you’ll want to open up Google Earth and turn on 3D buildings so you can see what’s really going on; it’s totally impossible to figure it out from the street! Development here offers a lot of inspiration for how to densify existing single-family neighborhoods, but wily West Wilson hides a lot of its tricks from view.

First up, this handsome pre-war apartment block called Canterbury Court. Note its size relative to its neighbor! The Tudor-ish façade is interesting too, since that style enjoyed a renaissance during the 1980s apartment boom, as we’ll see later. The age of many buildings on Wilson is missing in this handy database, but it does have data for Canterbury Court – 1928.

IMG_2906

The first building on the south side of the street is this single-family house, with an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) behind it not shown.

IMG_2905

West of that is our first trick building. From the street, it looks like a simple fourplex, with numbering (330, 330 ½, 332, 332 ½) that evokes prewar patterns.

IMG_2903

Check it out in Google Earth, though, and this fourplex has a hidden ADU building (can we call it a rear house!?) that looks like it has another four units! This unimposing lot appears to be developed at close to dingbat density.

On the north side, we have three larger 1980s apartment blocks (the underground parking is a dead giveaway as to the era of construction).

IMG_2907 IMG_2904 IMG_2902

This one is harder to place (it’s 1975), but I really like the twin chimneys and peaked roof.

IMG_2934

Back to the south side, we’ve got a classic dingbat (1961) and a building that I’m guessing is from the 1980s just because it looks like boatloads of unprofitable condos built around Lake Tahoe at the same time (and indeed, it’s 1987).

IMG_2932

The next building west puts on the front of a single-family residence (SFR), but it’s got an ADU out back and it’s actually a duplex itself.

IMG_2935

Moving back to the north side, we’ve got an SFR and a dingbat, built in 1962.

IMG_2937

Well, at least that’s what we have in front! The dingbat’s got a rear house that appears to be two more units, and the SFR has an ADU building.

IMG_2940

West of that, there are three buildings that genuinely appear to be SFRs.

IMG_2942

Back to the south side again, there’s another classic dingbat, and an older SFR.

IMG_2939

We’ve then got another dingbat with a rear house (built 1963) just peeking out into view.

IMG_2941

A newer single-lot apartment building (built 2005) and two large dingbat-like buildings (1986 and missing) take us to the corner of Columbus on the south side.

IMG_2944

On the north side, three SFRs take us to Columbus. The first has a couple units over a carport in the back, and the second has a single ADU. The houses all date to the 1910s and 1920s.

IMG_2946 IMG_2947

Vineyard – Columbus to Pacific

This block starts with a bang, with dueling dingbats on the corners, both built in 1963.

IMG_2949 IMG_2950

After that, on the north, we have an SFR with a four-unit rear house behind it, and a large 1984 building.

IMG_2952

On the south side, we have a single SFR (just visible on the left), and an SFR with a multi-unit ADU behind it.

IMG_2954

This is one of the trickiest blocks on W Wilson; housing units are everywhere – blink and you’ll miss them. Fortunately we have an alley between Wilson and Broadway to help us get a little better view on the south side. The next two buildings on the south side are what looks like an SFR and, um, what?

IMG_2955

Maybe we can get a better view from the back.

IMG_3047

Yep, that’s three cottages with a two-unit rear house over a carport. And surprise: totally invisible from Wilson, there are two little buildings behind the SFR

Next up is another larger structure, dating to 1991, the very tail end of the 1980s boom.

IMG_2956

This is followed by another SFR with a four-unit rear house.

IMG_2957 IMG_3048

Note that there is a wide variety of shapes and sizes, but the size isn’t necessarily a good proxy for number of units! In fact, the adjacent building to the west is a newer project, taking up 4 lots, but appearing to only have 18 units (4.5 units per lot, the maximum allowed by the current zoning). They’re certainly larger units, but on a dwelling unit basis, this building is less dense.

IMG_2959

Back on the north side, we have two SFRs, but they both have ADUs, hidden but for the subtle house number that can be seen at the edge of the yellow house.

IMG_2960

There are also two SFRs across the street on the south side, and the one on the right looks to be the only unit on the lot. The one on the left has a second house in the back, hidden from view on Wilson.

IMG_2961 IMG_3050

There are two more SFRs to the west on the south side, with the left one harboring a four-unit rear house, and the right one harboring a small parking lot for, um, what? The buildings across the alley?

IMG_2963 IMG_2962

The north side of the street is much more straight-forward: several 1980s apartment buildings and then two SFRs to take us to the corner of Pacific. The apartment building on the right is from 2002.

 IMG_2964IMG_2967

The south side finishes up with two SFRs that, of course, have ADUs out of sight. They’re actually big enough to be called houses in their own right.

IMG_2968

Vineyard – Pacific to Concord

Ok, ready to push through the last block? Well, plus a little coda, and a zoning discussion?

As we’ll see, the further we get from downtown Glendale, the less dense the development gets. The southwest corner of Pacific and Wilson is the last big pre-war multi-family building we’ll see. The architecture, lack of parking, and numbering scheme (500, 500 ½, 502, 502 ½) are the giveaway.

IMG_2969

Next, there’s a few SFRs; the one on the left has an ADU in the back. With only a few exceptions, the SFRs on this block date to the early 1920s.

IMG_2970IMG_2972

The north side of the block starts out with SFRs as well; I think the center one in the first picture has an ADU but it’s hard to tell from the street. The house in the center of the second picture definitely does, but it’s not easy to see. The one on the right in the last picture also has an ADU, which can be seen in Google Earth.

IMG_2971 IMG_2974 IMG_2976

On the south side, we have the first large apartment building on the block, taking up two lots. This building was built in 1979, before any downzoning, at the head end of the 1980s boom.

IMG_2977

Two true SFRs with no ADUs on the south side take us to Kenilworth Ave, a small local street.

IMG_2978

Next, on the north side, we have a single SFR, followed by a large 1985 apartment building that takes up four lots and appears to have about 20 units. The landscaping on the street makes it almost impossible to see all four buildings at once.

IMG_2981

On the south side, there’s a 1987 building and a 1963 building, both typical for their time.

IMG_2985

This is followed by a small SFR set so far back on the lot that one might conclude this was originally an ADU to a dearly departed main dwelling. However, if that’s the case, the original house has been gone since at least 1989, Google’s oldest aerial image for the region. The sign out front announces a proposed triplex on the site, the greatest number of units allowed by the current zoning.

IMG_2984

Next to that is a 1980s-looking building that shows how much more density was previously allowed.

IMG_2986

Back on the north side, there’s an SFR with an ADU peeking out; in Google Earth, it looks like the rear building actually has two units.

IMG_2987

The next house west straight up has a second house in the back yard.

IMG_2988

On the south side, there are two handsome SFRs; at left, an ADU can be seen, and there is a third unit totally hidden from view.

IMG_2989

Next to that is a large apartment block on two lots – two buildings, not identical but fraternal twins, dating to 1983 and 1985.

IMG_2993

Further down, a classic modern stucco apartment house from 1963 (hey, didn’t we see you on dingbats dingbats dingbats?) and a Tudor-ish 1974 building on four lots.

IMG_2994

Across from that, on the north side, are several SFRs; all but one have ADUs, but you’ll have to look in Google Earth to see them.

IMG_2991 IMG_2992

The north side of the block continues to stretch west with SFRs; some have ADUs, while others are actually duplexes, a type we haven’t yet seen much of on Wilson.

IMG_2996 IMG_2999 IMG_3003 IMG_3004 IMG_3009 IMG_3010

You’ll really have to look closely in Google Earth and Street View to try to see what’s what. Here’s a few where you can catch a glimpse of the ADU.

IMG_2995 IMG_3006 IMG_3020

Here’s one of the more obvious duplexes.

IMG_3021

Rounding out the residential units on the south side, we have an SFR (with an ADU not shown) and a dingbat with a rear house.

IMG_2997 IMG_2998

There’s a large one-lot 1973 building and then two true SFRs without ADUs.

IMG_3002IMG_3001

The south side then goes industrial, with some single story office/warehouse type buildings.

IMG_3005 IMG_3007

Vineyard – Concord to San Fernando

The last little block takes us down to San Fernando Rd, which runs next to the Metrolink tracks that form the boundary with Los Angeles. This block is made up of one-story industrial uses.

IMG_3012 IMG_3013 IMG_3017

At the corner of San Fernando, there’s a small local hangout.

IMG_3015

Vineyard – Zoning

Zoning west of Central is covered by Glendale’s general zoning plan.

generalzoning

From east to west, the blocks of W Wilson are zoned R-1250, R-1650, R-2250, and IMU. The R zones are residential multi-family zones, where the number indicates the required lot area in square feet per unit. IMU is industrial/commercial mixed use. Parking requirements are 2 spots per unit, except 2.5 spots for 3-bedroom units and 3 spots for 4-bedroom units.

Thus, the permitted residential density on W Wilson steps down as you head west towards San Fernando Rd. Lots on the north side of Wilson appear to be about 50’ x 140’ lot, which translates to 5, 4, and 3 units per lot; on the south side, lots appear to be about 50’ x 175’, which translates to 7, 5, and 3 units per lot.

Which Way, W Wilson?

West Wilson Ave presents an interesting variety of residential housing types, from single-family houses to large apartment buildings, backyard cottages to dingbats with rear houses. In these few blocks, it captures both the opportunities and challenges for housing in greater LA in general.

The housing types of W Wilson point the way forward for natural growth of less dense neighborhoods, such as centrally located single-family areas. These options – ADUs, rear houses, small apartment buildings – are some of the best ways to improve housing affordability. They’re lower cost to construct, and don’t result in the loss of a lot of existing units. They allow for an evolution of building types rather than a sudden change. There are still development opportunities on Wilson; you could buy one of the remaining SFRs and built townhouses or put up some ADUs in the back. We would do well to allow other neighborhoods to grow the way Wilson did.

On the other hand, this area was clearly downzoned in the 1980s. There are lots occupied by SFRs where you can only build 3 or 4 units, despite the adjacent lots having 7 to 10 units. If housing prices in LA continue to rise, there will be pressure to redevelop lots that are currently occupied by a SFR and a few ADUs. Under the current zoning, we won’t end up with more housing units, just larger, newer, more expensive units. In some cases, redevelopment might result in a net reduction of units. It shouldn’t be a radical idea that new development be permitted to be at least as dense as its neighbors. Would a few 5-story buildings really make a big difference in how the street feels?

The foot of Wilson Ave, along with San Fernando Rd itself, is worth looking at in more detail, in a future post. For now, development patterns on Wilson Ave stand as proof that we do know how to do mixed-use projects and residential density in the LA region, when we let ourselves do them.

Rambla La Cienega

Los Angeles is full of wide boulevards whose potential to be great urban corridors, like Parisian boulevards, has been well noted. However, overcoming funding challenges, along with entrenched interests like motorists and auto-oriented development, might make it seem daunting. So how about a starter project on La Cienega Ave.

La Cienega Blvd? No, La Cienega Ave. Just south of the 10, after it crosses Venice, La Cienega Blvd swings east before resuming its southward course towards the oil fields. Where the boulevard swings east, the avenue runs straight, south to Washington. A look at ZIMAS gives some insight.

LaCienegaZoning

Judging from the odd layout of property lines on La Cienega Blvd between Washington and Fairfax, and the strange property lines heading due west from the curve in Adams, here’s a guess at what happened. The original layout of La Cienega went straight south from Venice to Washington. Meanwhile, Adams went straight west from Fairfax to Washington, and then curved northwest to the intersection of Venice and La Cienega.

Later, when it was decided to create La Cienega Blvd as we know it today, a new road was laid out from Washington to Fairfax, across the pre-existing property lines. Rather than accepting a skewed five-way intersection between La Cienega, Washington, and Adams, the latter was realigned to curve northwest and intersect Washington east of the new La Cienega, which took over the route of Adams from the old La Cienega to Washington. This would have been done to create a better north-south arterial roadway; Fairfax north of the 10 has a narrower right-of-way (ROW) than La Cienega, and this change would eliminate the dead-end on La Cienega.

Got that? All speculation based on the property lines, but next time you’re out there, note that LADWP’s power lines follow the initial route for Adams suggested here. The important thing is that this change left La Cienega Ave dangling in urban design limbo, a 100’ ROW that became a minor street.

Most of that space has been given over to angle parking. While it doesn’t look like much space, this is actually about the same ROW width as the famous La Rambla in Barcelona. Redistribute the street space, and you could build a mini-rambla on La Cienega Ave.

I won’t even try to design or render that green space – that’s what landscape architects are for! Leaving the street in their hands, what about adjoining land use?

La Cienega Ave is currently zoned C2, which allows many commercial uses and also R4 residential density (the denser end of the dingbat spectrum). However, this zone is limited to a total FAR of 1.5, which won’t cut it. It should be upzoned to something like RAS4, which allows mixed use with FAR 3.0, or better yet, a hypothetical RAS5 zone with FAR 6.0, allowing denser residential development. ZIMAS uses orange for multi-family residential zones, but don’t let that fool you: the residential streets here are almost all RD2 and RD1.5, which allows only 2-3 units per lot. The side streets feeding La Cienega Ave, Hargis and Melvil, should be upzoned to R4 or RAS4. Parking requirements, as always, would probably need to be relaxed.

Ultimately, the hope would be to create a mixed-use district centered on the rambla, something like Americana at Brand but without the inevitable overplanning and uniformity of design that come with a single owner.

The upzoning might be able to help pay for the improvements to La Cienega Ave, which should be a minor burden if distributed out. As for transit, this area is less than a mile from both Culver City and Jefferson/La Cienega on the Expo Line, and well served by bus routes 33/733 on Venice and 105/705 on La Cienega.

The Heart of Palms-ness: Motor Av

I’ve written before about my neighborhood’s namesake boulevard, but the development on Palms is almost all residential. The “main streets” of Palms are really Motor and Overland. So today, let’s take a tour of Motor Av.

A word must be said at the outset: the architecture on Motor Av is not going to inspire many people. James Howard Kunstler isn’t going to write anything romantic about its earnest ornamentation reflecting the city’s work ethic or how the repetition of a pattern in the street room delights the eye. Whatevs, streetscapes are relatively easy to improve. The real thing to be watching here is diversity of use (residential, offices, retail, light industry, restaurants) and the wide range of building ages (everything over the last 100 years).

So if you find yourself getting caught up in the architecture, remember: you’re looking at a hard working neighborhood main street, that’s getting it done in just about every way. It’s within walking distance for pretty much everyone in the neighborhood. If, on the whole, you’re not happy with Motor Av, your primary concern isn’t diverse mixed-use neighborhoods. There’s nothing wrong with that, but part of understanding what your strategies should be is understanding what your goals are. A denser, more walkable LA is going to have more streets that function, and probably look, like Motor.

Oh, and one more thing: notice that between the Google Street View shots (2011) and my photos (2014), Motor has been converted from four lanes to three lanes with bike lanes! Alright, off we go.

Venice to Regent

Starting just north of Venice, on the west side of the street, here’s a cleaners, an antique shop, a random building, and the post office.

IMG_4548-ed

Across the street, here’s the neighborhood bike shop (in a 1923 building), a small apartment house (built 1931), and an office building (1989). Need a small affordable office for your business? Palms has you covered.

Motor-01

Just past that, there’s a landlord’s office with apartments above (1953), hair salon & roofing business (1947), and another small apartment house (1958).

Motor-02

Back on the west side, a preschool (1936) and some more office buildings (1986, 1964, 1953).

Motor-03

Across from that, we have an SFR (!), an apartment block, and a plumber (1924, 1959, 1972).

Motor-04

Meanwhile on the west side, a newish (2004) more upscale apartment building.

IMG_4554

Then, at the corner of Motor & Regent, an auto body shop (1947), some furnished single apartments (1955), the fire station (1952), and another commercial building (1957).

Motor-05

And all of that is just the first block!

Regent to Tabor

Continuing north, we have a small office building (1991) and a mid-size apartment building (1971) on the west side.

IMG_4556

And across from that, a larger apartment building (1987).

Motor-06

North of that building, there’s a series of small apartment buildings (1946, 1956, 1988).

Motor-07

Opposite that, we have another private school (1925 & 1967 buildings), a newer four-story apartment building (2006), and an old apartment building (1955).

IMG_4558

Continuing north, a 1925 SFR with a 1931 ADU, another small 80s office building (1984), and four bungalow-size standalone houses on one lot (1941).

Motor-08

A few more office buildings (1982, 1929, 1980, 1963) and a 1954 dingbat bring us up to the corner of Tabor on the west side.

IMG_4562

IMG_4564

Meanwhile, the second half of the block on the east side features an office building (1972), several residential buildings (1947, 1953, 1953, 2006, 2006), and a motel (1961).

Motor-09

Tabor to Palms

Across Tabor, we have a couple convenience stores and Laundromat; right side dates to 1923, while the left side strip mall is 1960.

Motor-10

Next up, on the west side, our second (but not our last) SFR! This one is from 1904. Next to that, a low slung 1948 apartment building and more 80s office buildings (1987, 1989).

IMG_4566

A medical building (1971), a sign manufacturing shop (1947), and a sandwich shop (1930, 1954) round out the west side of this block.

Motor-11

Almost the whole east side is occupied by Palms Elementary School.

Motor-12

Palms to Woodbine

Crossing Palms Blvd, there’s an Arco gas station (cheapest gas around as long as you can deal with their bizarre ATM card machines) on the west side, and Palms’ newest mixed-use building (2013) on the east side. Some of the retail space on the first floor has been occupied by The Wilde Thistle. . . welcome to Palms, y’all!

IMG_4568

Back on the west side, there’s the who-knows-what light manufacturing building (1950), yet another SFR (1916), an under-construction four-story apartment building (2014?), and an auto repair shop (1940s). Houston, eat your heart out.

IMG_4647

The east side has some more 1980s office buildings, a physical therapy building, and some “store & residential combination” buildings from various decades. The corner office building is 1997.

Motor-13

Woodbine to National

Ok, two more blocks to go! On the east side, three small office buildings (1910, 1940, 1961) and Iman cultural center.

IMG_4574

Also some bad ass street art.

IMG_4575

Across from that, The Garage, a solid neighborhood bar in a 1961 building, and some office buildings all over the place (30s-80s). A four-story apartment building (1988) and old-school mixed-user (1924) take us up to National.

IMG_4578

The east side has a liquor store and more genuine urban industry!

IMG_4577

Home stretch, from National to the 10. The northeast corner has a 1981 retail/office combo building. Then, some small offices including an art school (1951, 1946), and another auto body shop (1947).

IMG_4580

Motor-15

On the west side, there’s another medical building (1941), another solid neighborhood bar (The Irish Times, 1946), and some apartment buildings (1957, 1955).

Motor-16

Of course, Motor keeps going north past the 10, but I hear that’s the kind of neighborhood where they’re scared of bike lanes and worry about the spacing of poles holding up netting at a driving range. Nice architectural uniformity, but nothing interesting to see there.