I don't necessarily get how the winner became the winner.

Los Angeles already has a small lot subdivision ordinance (#176354) in place doesn't it?

The winner seems to have put a layer of lacquer and pizazz on an already existing idea. I do not know how you win a competition by essentially plagiarizing an already existing ordinance. Perhaps, I have a new methodology for winning contests.

In addition, the small lot ordinance does not necessarily prohibit landlocked lots -- although I'm not sure whether or not there's specific ordinances requiring emergency access/egress. Just as long as each subdivision has 20 or more feet of continuous frontage.

If anything, this doesn't particularly work because there's a restriction that each unit gets two parking spaces. Can't really have ultra-dense cottage houses if your parking requirement is equivalent to the size of your first floor!

In addition, I'm sure there is restrictions about this kind of density, development pattern and the inclusion of expensive fire suppression systems.

All of this brings it to this point:

"The implementation of Tokyo-style small homes on small lots has been unfeasible primarily due to limitations on lot subdivisions. We propose modifying the Los Angeles Planning and Zoning Code to create a new tool for the urban designer’s toolbox: Microparcelization. With more freedom than under the Small Lot Subdivision Ordinance, landowners within designated districts would be permitted by right to subdivide their parcels into separate legal parcels as small as the marketplace will support."

I've adapted your zoning and ordinances to fit my conceptual idea. HUR HUR, it won't work. Please change all your laws. Ok, thanks!"

Now to actual urban theory?

This will destory the economic viability of neighborhoods by making site assembly [b]next to impossible.

In addition, it still is single-family detached house centric and does not necessarily solve Los Angeles' "problem" of "too many houses."

If the proposal is to make radical changes to zoning and ordinance for the sake of reforming Los Angeles' urban landscape, they should remove height limitations and decrease parking requirements.

At the maximum, the winning proposal would feasibly keep constant or even reduce population density which would ultimately limit business opportunities and increase congestion.

Looks like a coastal B&B. You can stay in the mushroom, or the irrigation pavilion. Another obvious comparison is to a trailer park made of amusement park spare parts.

I'm all for smarter use of land, but this scheme hardly brings anything new to the table. This would be inappropriate outside of SoCal due to heating/cooling requirements.

Perhaps this is an update to the classic 70's Californian cheap motel/rental housing type with corridors being communal balconies. Yupee!

Link to other competition entries appear to be broken.

Building on the idea of misappropriation and misrepresentation:

I submit this entry to the Los Angeles Forum for Architecture and Urban Design as a rebuttal to your competition, its intentions and your selection of finalists:



Here is [strike]my[/strike] proposal. As you can see, it is [strike]totally my idea[/strike]. This "rendering" [strike]I've prepared[/strike], that is [strike]total my own work[/strike] and [strike]totally my own ideas[/strike] shows how you can bring both density, business and quality of life to transition neighborhoods.

other winners. keep it coming, these are good comments. i don't think competition got too many viewer responses.

http://www.laforum.org/content/competitions/dingbats-competition-winners

Too easy?

Please do keep it coming. I am bowled over by the winner, although I don't know LA well and don't really understand the ordinances but its
just a competition. On the one hand its bonkers on the other well...

No, too crap Unicorn Ghost! Too dense to give any quality of life of course.

unicorn, that was my idea too. but i was going to use different one for each floor. since you are fast with photoshop, can you use the ones from here and draw one for me please? i'll pay you somehow..

http://www.flickr.com/photos/87051047@N00/sets/72157622516948513/

I thought the obvious thing to do was double the size of the lot and build a decent mid-rise apartment building..but the cuteness thing with the ducklings.

A lot of those shots a little too complex for me to photoshop into a singular building without doing a lot of resizing, editing and cloning out.

I could probably build something in SketchUp faster than making a composite.

quadrupling (or more) the number of potential clients for single family homes is an interesting proposition for an architect. think of all the startup firms!

sorry the proposal doesn't fit your mold enough to actually consider the potentials unicorn.

just a technical observation...but the winner has most of the PV shaded DURING THE HEIGHT OF PRODUCTION HOURS. this is an enormous waste of money and resources. Basically the ENTIRE string will have a substantially reduced output. Aesthetics aside, this is plain moronic. Isn't the point of a competition to make an interesting idea work? This seems like "green" lip service to me, and is EXACTLY the kind of thing holding true sustainability back in our profession.

Really? Must check that...

Really? Must check that...

I like this one:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/87051047@N00/4035684570/in/set-72157622516948513/

it should be expected, but i'm disheartened by the cynicism here. to call an entire proposal moronic because one house (of hundreds) places pvs in a non-optimal location completely misses the point. It is a pluralistic scheme where issues like that are resolved by the architect of the individual parcel.

To me this is a provocative proposal because it promotes bottom-up urbanism instead relying on preconceived notions of "actual urban theory".

As an angeleno, I would like to see this implemented because of the potential impact on the profession in this city as well as the impact it will have on urbanism in this city. I am not certain what the results would be, and wouldn't pretend to know, but it'd be an interesting experiment.

I really agree. I think you have to see the competition in that way. Its
very interesting, its saying well if you have that many dwelling units on a site..this is a better way, its diverse, it might be.

Well, dot:

Let's see if you think that way after you end up having to make your entire house out of poured concrete, have to install $20,000 to $50,000 worth of fire suppression systems, have to legally let your neighbors walk all over your property and not being able to sell your property at fair market value because too many easements have been placed on your parcel.

Then you get into the terror zone that is condominiums and co-ops because these "microparcels" will have substantial amounts of non-public private areas.

I was simply pointing out that the winner's proposal already actually exists and there's more than enough legal framework for his idea to have been implemented.

Not to mention, Los Angeles has plenty of existing courts and cottage blocks.

Cities have to grow up -- both in the vertical sense and in accepting that they're no longer breezy easy suburbs. Not to mention, you'll hit a finite point to where more city government will be involved because the sheer increases in the number of parcels and lots will require more work, more money and more employees to maintain.

In addition, from what I've seen, most dingbats located are not exactly in friendly walkable or 'neighborhood' locales. The dingbat ultimately serves a great purpose in an unfriendly, automotive dominated city.

Lastly, does Los Angeles have the existing housing stock to start ghetto busting? I'm assuming your typical dingbat tenant isn't very wealthy.

That's where it becomes offensive is that you're "disheartened" because we (at least I) realize it is completely selfish to want to mow down the ghetto to build cutesy completely inappropriate cottages while not directly addressing the bigger and more systemic and infrastructural problems associated with older Los Angeles?

I really doubt there's a market big enough to absorb a housing trend like this. And, uh, this model kind of ignores automobile use while not providing functional urban blocks.

that's a fair and informed response, but i think it presumes failure without letting the idea get off the ground.

the small lot ordinance has been around for years, and has resulted in some successful developments near my old place in silverlake. the architectural treatment of these lots seem well suited for the neighborhood. however, like you say, this ordinance applies only to single family and commercial lots that are of a certain make-up.

but don't you think micro-parcelization is the opposite of ghetto-busting to make way or the next mid-rise condo? i see non-regulated micro-parcelization happening all the time in boyle-heights, which leads me to believe it is the more bottom-up approach.

and what about the transformative potential for such a scheme? what this proposal does is create a scenario for taking a prevalent typology in los angeles, uses an existing political framework, and proposes a real-life solution. don't you think micro-parcelization would provide accessibility of ownership, and thus reduce the need for government maintenance and administration? i don't see why this wouldn't work in the hood as well.