Topic: Density - Hosted by EDAW
The discussion began with a presentation by Gaurav Srivastava of EDAW on Density with a great deal of interesting information- how dense LA is by comparison to other cities, how density (and tall buildings) are increasingly moving to the Far East, and how poverty and density closely correlate, yet density and transit correlate less clearly or directly.
Thoughts that followed:
"Density" as become a loaded term, while it is and should be a measurable quality- a neutral statement. We should clarify our language to discuss "high density and "low density.
Developers are driving the issue of "how dense should LA be". A vision for the city should be created- how do we want our city to be.
LA is already dense- dense enough to make transit work, and it's unnecessary to plan additional density around transit, but to serve the density already in place. Existing density tens to be hidden, and exacerbated because residential density and jobs density doesn't match.
Population growth is inevitable, although different densities and distribution of that density has different costs. Infrastructure especially transit is costly and requires a behavioral shift. How to frame the discussion and redefine the discussion around transit so that it becomes the first choice?
Where should the density go? The vision for the city has been one of creating density around centers as well as along the boulevards while preserving single-family neighborhoods. One significant challenge is how to transition from density (and height) along the boulevards to lower-scale neighborhoods behind.
How to re-mold the city for rail and transit to work? LA is still not compact enough for mass transit to work so well, although there seems to be enough downtown. Transit also works well for those living in Mid-Wilshire and Koreatown. Many in attendance are transit riders, and would prefer transit. Where there is sufficient transit, parking requirements should vary, so people are encouraged to take transit and get the benefit of not having to also build parking.
What makes density work? In order to concentrate density, there must be sufficient services- not only transit, but parks, libraries schools etc. Often opposition to additional growth is really a concern about diminishing services…Growth needs to be directed, but this is a difficult public relations issue, even though Councilmembers seem to want walkability, density is difficult for much of the public to buy into…And since much of the parcels along the boulevards are 50 x 150 parcels, how can you plan effectively?
Old models of planning which separate uses and make the priority the automobile, with malls that turn their backs to the street are no longer useful. Density is better directed to preferred patterns of land use- mixed-use development and TODs. Some of the best planning is done by a close reading of the existing fabric- reference made to work by Roger Sherman and Dana Cuff at UCLA as good example.
Examples of density done well- elegant density- is key to these discussions with community. Creating examples of successful models can be very helpful. Community plans are the vehicle for planning the future of growth, but is that the most effective way to plan citywide? 
