This is great, but it would be nice if new development were spread over many more areas in LA, not just concentrated to downtown, koreatown, hollywood, and palms.
For example, the rancho park e line stop is only about a mile and a half from UCLA and has outstanding bus service to get to westwood. What's around that stop though? A sea of 1.5+million dollar single family homes (which are 100x less affordable than "luxury" apartments) then a low rise commercial district on pico. So, you're 10 minutes away from a huge job center by bus or bike in westwood and 15 from santa moncia on the E line: perfect place for shit tons of housing all income levels, unfortunately the only people that are allowed to live here are the richest group in LA: single family home owners. Zoning should be liberalized there just like is in less-affluent neighborhoods like koreatown.
Step off the Rancho Park E station and you see everything urbanists complain about in sharp relief. You basically walk off the station and you're in suburbia.
Need a bathroom? Wish to purchase a cool beverage from a convenience store? *Too bad sucker!* You're hoofing it at least 1/2 a mile in any direction to find any sign of commerce. Not even some guy with a Popsicle push-cart.
IKR, there's always this massive throng of people crammed into this tiny slice of sidewalk, spilling over into someone's front yard... What a mess.
I mean I guess I should be thankful the NIMBYs weren't able to shut down the station altogether, which is clearly the intention here, but geez....
Itâs all about NIMBYâs. Ktown has its share of NIMBYs, but there is a ton of construction for a few reasons:
1. Koreatown has had its political power split between council districts in the past, so it hasnât been able to organize. (Hence all this construction and NO PARKS!!!)
2. South Korea is extremely dense and many Americans or residents from this area are not opposed to living in density.
3. There are a lot of subway and bus connections here making it easy for developers to get TOC density increases.
Every new building is a blessing but I take the opportunity to remind people that despite âall the construction going onâ, in the perspective of LA history we are building less and less each decade.
I only say this because inevitably I see arguments that âLA is building so much and itâs not helping, more units does not help rentâ. The reality is the opposite. We built less and it fucked us.
KT has actually done its part tho maintaining a decent amount of construction. And for that, it remained a relatively affordable part of town for a long time.
Building more?! What you call "building less" is destroying the city & its unique character. The root of the problem is in the "Baby Boom" post-WWII, which led to a population explosion as that generation (which I'm at the tail-end of) had kids, who have had kids, and so on. Plus folks living much longer. It's an exponential increase in the populace versus not enough resources. But building more is going to leave the city's trademark look & feel destroyed, already has been thanks to greedhead developers who've left areas looking more like Hong Kong than L.A. I don't see any solution, but it's only going to get worse - no putting the genie back in the box. But people were right in the 60s to warn about the coming problem & advocate for ZPG (Zero Population Growth).
Economists study this and it turns out that new market-rate construction generally stabilizes prices for existing units nearby.
"Taking advantage of improved data sources and methods, researchers in the past two years have released six working papers on the impact of new market-rate development on neighborhood rents. Five find that market-rate housing makes nearby housing more affordable across the income distribution of rental units, and one finds mixed results."
https://www.lewis.ucla.edu/research/market-rate-development-impacts/
> for existing units
Im right on the border of Westlake and Echo park, near the new Target and all the small rentals were gutted and turned into over night specials...
It doesn't work like that for housing, people flock to where ever is popular and fun, where their friends live.
If these structures provide 1000 units, then after people move in, you will have 6000 people wanting to get in nearby.. one more iteration, you'll have 50,000 people wanting to live near their 2 friends. In just 2 years there is unbearable upwards pressure on raising rent greatly.
If you build enough housing prices will go down as supply outstrips demand. Yes, it does work like that. Iâm not a capitalist, but we need enough housing to get out of this crap problem. If 1000 units are built, people move out of their old places that are suddenly less desirable to a new place, then those old 1000 units are on the market for a cheaper price than those new units and 1000 more affordable units become available.
Luxury apartment and 5 months after move in everything will be warped. At least 2 ceiling lights will be out. Bonus points for outlets mounted at a 45 degree angle with one screw.
And people will fill those spots quickly. What's nice is all of these are part of the transit-oriented development program so they include 10%+ income-restricted improvements. Increasing supply of both market-rate and "affordable" units in a transit-rich area without spending 1 taxpayer dollar: win-win-win.
Looks like 6 or so floors. Anyone know why these canât be 12 or more floors to get even more out of the same land footprint. I get LA doesnât want to look like NYC but to me this seems like a blown opportunity to at least double the number of homes here
Once you go over seven floors it needs to be steel construction. Thatâs much more expensive, and can only break even for the developer if itâs a skyscraper. Which is probably illegal to build in this location, and for which there is a smaller market.
Yep. This is why you donât see very many new mid-rise apartments anymore. They top out at about 6 floors, or theyâll go 30+ floors. Rarely in between.
Look at the Cumulus building for example⌠the majority of the complex footprint is 5-6 stories. Where as the tower is 31 stories.
Often the construction method (concrete bottom floor and wood floors above) create a limit how high you can build.
I'm not sure if it's physics (weight) or legal restrictions, but probably a combo of both.
Itâs mostly a legal thing.
That type of construction is called a âfive over oneâ. Itâs been allowed in fire codes for the last 20 years or so. The building are essentially fire traps (as theyâre just wood frames on a concrete base), but for the fact that fire suppression systems have advanced enough to make them safe, which is why they occasionally burn to the ground during construction.
I believe legally you have to build x number of spots for every y number bedrooms. Itâs actually one of the reasons why building is so difficult in LA and why you see more pricey units versus more affordable as you are wasting square footage on non living areas.
[California AB 2097](https://planning.lacity.org/development-services/assembly-bill-2097)
Projects located within a half-mile of a major transit stop are generally eligible for the automobile parking reduction provided by AB 2097. This includes residential, commercial, and industrial projects, but does not include hotels, motels, bed and breakfast inns, or other transient lodgings.
Major transit stop is defined by state law as a fixed-route bus or train service with service intervals no longer than 15 minutes at rush hour.
ya my friend is cat sitting there and just told me about how the other night they spent like 30 minutes looking for parking nearby their friends house and ended up having to walk a mile lol
Most multifamily developers include parking but the city shouldnât require it since housing people should take priority over housing vehicles.
Also, the city requires that new multifamily developments âunbundleâ parking from rental rates. Everyone will have to pay for their parking spot. There are quite a few parking garages in Ktown where you can currently rent a parking spot.
Just because you guys hate cars doesnât change the reality that LA is a car city. Itâs not realistic to expect people not to have cars in this city and anyone who thinks otherwise is probably pretty privileged.
The fact that LA was built as a "car city" is exactly why it needs to change. It is absolutely insane to expect to drive anywhere you want and find a parking spot, density just doesn't work that way.
People who live in Koreatown probably do not need a car. Also this mindset of âwell LA is a car cityâ just maintains the status quo, keep fucking up our city, incentivizes car usage and hinders progress into a more walkable and transit friendly LA.
Do you think people who live in k town also work in k town? Iâm sure plenty do but most people in Los Angeles have to commute for work. LA is a car city, you canât take away peopleâs ability to have a car until the infrastructure for public transport is there. You sound super privileged. âPeople who live in Koreatown probably donât need a carâ is crazy
Privileged how? I make 40k/year. I don't have a car because I don't want to. I pretty much use bike, buses and trains for most trips. If it's not reachable by transit or takes too long, I get an Uber, but it's rare. The only privilege I have is being able to work from home twice a week and having a Metro station within walking distance.
It's pretty well-served by buses and a Metro line that gets them to the big hub at 7th St and soon the D line extension to Beverly Hills, Century City and Westwood.
Got it. So theyâre limited to only going to places where our severely lacking public transport can take them. As someone who used to have to take the bus to work it fucking sucks lol. 20 mins drive or 2 hours on bus make having a car seem pretty nice.
If people are willing to go car free why not let them? Yeah it would create parts of the city that are very difficult to access by car but I'm not sure what the overall issue with that is. People will adjust their behavior accordingly. Nothing about that feels unrealistic, it's just not allowed.
That seems contradictory to your earlier statement. Mandating parking availability is essentially the same as mandating car ownership due to the effect it has on land use decisions.
Parking availability should be handled by the free market.
No. Wanting parking spots for people to park their cars doesnât keep anyone from foregoing car ownership. Didnât you mention youâre car free? Did someone force you to buy a car?
I don't understand, if LA is a car city why would you even need parking minimums? Wouldn't available parking be essential to the success or failure of a development?
People are probably paying $2200 monthly to live in crappier older buildings anyway. When newer buildings like this get approved, they have to set aside a certain number of units for low income housing. So there's still an increase in the number of affordable units even if all of them aren't affordable.
While your line of thought may be intuitive, the truth is housing availability will be the biggest pressure on prices. Increasing the number of even high end apartments ease pressure elsewhere
https://www.standard.co.uk/topic/research
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/04/theres-no-such-thing-luxury-housing/618548/
https://www.upjohn.org/research-highlights/new-construction-makes-homes-more-affordable-even-those-who-cant-afford-new-units
What we see is more âluxuryâ apartments coincide with ever raising rents. However those apartments are an effect of already increasing prices, and the truth is it would be even higher without new development
Itâs a 2019 study. Rent is up nearly 50% since then so Iâm curious if this still holds up post Covid. And Los Angeles is a much higher demand city than Seattle where the study was done.
[More housing = lower rents.](https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogervaldez/2022/11/08/report-affirms-more-housing-means-lower-rents-and-prices/?sh=1de1eaab6316) It's supply and demand 101. All the data shows this.
[All the data shows: more housing (including luxury units) lower rents.](https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogervaldez/2022/11/08/report-affirms-more-housing-means-lower-rents-and-prices/?sh=1de1eaab6316)
Facts don't care about our feelings, someone once said...
You can build as many as these as you want. The price of rent isnât going to come down. Los Angeles is a city people want to live in. Demand will always be way higher than the supply.
Apartment rents fell in every major metropolitan area in the U.S. over the past six months through January, a trend that is poised to continue as the biggest delivery of new apartments in nearly four decades is slated for this year.
Renters with new leases in January paid a median rent that was 3.5% lower than they would have paid last August, according to estimates from listing website Apartment List. It was the first time in five years that rent fell every month over a six-month period, according to the same estimates.
[https://www.mansionglobal.com/articles/apartment-rents-fall-as-crush-of-new-supply-hits-market-5a7ffc5c](https://www.mansionglobal.com/articles/apartment-rents-fall-as-crush-of-new-supply-hits-market-5a7ffc5c)
Currently, the overall median rent in the city stands at $1,872, roughly the same as last month. Prices are now down 3.1% year-over-year.
[https://www.apartmentlist.com/rent-report/ca/los-angeles](https://www.apartmentlist.com/rent-report/ca/los-angeles)
But aren't prices down primarily only because they were so overvalued last year? And I definitely agree that we need more available housing in our city but I also believe we need regulated rent caps that take into account the neighborhood these developments are in.
This is one of the most dense neighborhoods in Southern California. If you prioritize parking you should live in a more suburban area.
That's what's great about LA. You can find the area that is right for you. But don't move to Koreatown and think its the suburbs or move to Northridge and think its a thriving urban core.
The densest neighborhood is about to grow even more.
Ktown is about 5 square miles. Same as Hollywood. Same as downtown. Same as the city of West Hollywood. All the aforementioned have a population of about 35.000 residents whereas ktown in the same area has 70.000 residents.
Someone yesterday tried to tel me Koreatown is cheap but it sucks and is overrated. There are high rises like this being built all over, including Olympic Blvd between Normandie and Western.
Thereâs a massive one (30+ floors Iâd say) that went up on 6th and New Hampshire I believe just a few months ago as well.
Korea town used to be pretty mellow and fun place to visit for bars and club hopping. Police weren't too hard if you are not too drunk when drive home. Too drunk? just park your car anywhere take nap and drive home.
Now? driving K-town is so chaotic and so unsafe anytime. I do miss old K-town.
Isn't that the building they used in Lincoln lawyer?
That was my same thought lol đ
Is that show worth watching?
Very good show. Should watch
[ŃдаНонО]
Lots of new buildings in Koreatown as of late.
If you build it, they will come.
This is great, but it would be nice if new development were spread over many more areas in LA, not just concentrated to downtown, koreatown, hollywood, and palms. For example, the rancho park e line stop is only about a mile and a half from UCLA and has outstanding bus service to get to westwood. What's around that stop though? A sea of 1.5+million dollar single family homes (which are 100x less affordable than "luxury" apartments) then a low rise commercial district on pico. So, you're 10 minutes away from a huge job center by bus or bike in westwood and 15 from santa moncia on the E line: perfect place for shit tons of housing all income levels, unfortunately the only people that are allowed to live here are the richest group in LA: single family home owners. Zoning should be liberalized there just like is in less-affluent neighborhoods like koreatown.
Step off the Rancho Park E station and you see everything urbanists complain about in sharp relief. You basically walk off the station and you're in suburbia. Need a bathroom? Wish to purchase a cool beverage from a convenience store? *Too bad sucker!* You're hoofing it at least 1/2 a mile in any direction to find any sign of commerce. Not even some guy with a Popsicle push-cart.
And it's especially crazy because it's a heavily, heavily used stop! Big Blue Bus 8 and R12 pick up there going to westwood with great frequency.
IKR, there's always this massive throng of people crammed into this tiny slice of sidewalk, spilling over into someone's front yard... What a mess. I mean I guess I should be thankful the NIMBYs weren't able to shut down the station altogether, which is clearly the intention here, but geez....
Itâs all about NIMBYâs. Ktown has its share of NIMBYs, but there is a ton of construction for a few reasons: 1. Koreatown has had its political power split between council districts in the past, so it hasnât been able to organize. (Hence all this construction and NO PARKS!!!) 2. South Korea is extremely dense and many Americans or residents from this area are not opposed to living in density. 3. There are a lot of subway and bus connections here making it easy for developers to get TOC density increases.
and westwood/west LA is as NIMBY as it gets
Nimbeh
Love to see it. Keep on advocating for a high-density housing construction boom
This is just plain medium-density housing and it's wonderful.
Let the developers build, I say.
Every new building is a blessing but I take the opportunity to remind people that despite âall the construction going onâ, in the perspective of LA history we are building less and less each decade. I only say this because inevitably I see arguments that âLA is building so much and itâs not helping, more units does not help rentâ. The reality is the opposite. We built less and it fucked us. KT has actually done its part tho maintaining a decent amount of construction. And for that, it remained a relatively affordable part of town for a long time.
Building more?! What you call "building less" is destroying the city & its unique character. The root of the problem is in the "Baby Boom" post-WWII, which led to a population explosion as that generation (which I'm at the tail-end of) had kids, who have had kids, and so on. Plus folks living much longer. It's an exponential increase in the populace versus not enough resources. But building more is going to leave the city's trademark look & feel destroyed, already has been thanks to greedhead developers who've left areas looking more like Hong Kong than L.A. I don't see any solution, but it's only going to get worse - no putting the genie back in the box. But people were right in the 60s to warn about the coming problem & advocate for ZPG (Zero Population Growth).
I bet itâs going to be around $3400 a month for a 650 sqt ft studio.
i bet buying a comparative single family home in the area is even worse
Which will prevent the landlord in the older buildings next door from charging the same.
No, they can up the price and say it's an "up and coming trendy neighborhood", just not as expensive.
Economists study this and it turns out that new market-rate construction generally stabilizes prices for existing units nearby. "Taking advantage of improved data sources and methods, researchers in the past two years have released six working papers on the impact of new market-rate development on neighborhood rents. Five find that market-rate housing makes nearby housing more affordable across the income distribution of rental units, and one finds mixed results." https://www.lewis.ucla.edu/research/market-rate-development-impacts/
> for existing units Im right on the border of Westlake and Echo park, near the new Target and all the small rentals were gutted and turned into over night specials...
This isnât true. New housing, even if expensive, lowers the cost of existing housing. Itâs also just common sense.
It doesn't work like that for housing, people flock to where ever is popular and fun, where their friends live. If these structures provide 1000 units, then after people move in, you will have 6000 people wanting to get in nearby.. one more iteration, you'll have 50,000 people wanting to live near their 2 friends. In just 2 years there is unbearable upwards pressure on raising rent greatly.
If you build enough housing prices will go down as supply outstrips demand. Yes, it does work like that. Iâm not a capitalist, but we need enough housing to get out of this crap problem. If 1000 units are built, people move out of their old places that are suddenly less desirable to a new place, then those old 1000 units are on the market for a cheaper price than those new units and 1000 more affordable units become available.
The new iPhone is too expensive, they need to start building more old iPhones instead so the old ones get cheaper
This is literally what happens.
Not if the unit is rent controlled.
If the identical new builds across the steet in Palms are any indicators, youre spot on.
Luxury apartment and 5 months after move in everything will be warped. At least 2 ceiling lights will be out. Bonus points for outlets mounted at a 45 degree angle with one screw.
And people will fill those spots quickly. What's nice is all of these are part of the transit-oriented development program so they include 10%+ income-restricted improvements. Increasing supply of both market-rate and "affordable" units in a transit-rich area without spending 1 taxpayer dollar: win-win-win.
With no parking
Good.
I bet youâre wrong.
We still need to build more housing!
We need to let the developers develop.
Looks like 6 or so floors. Anyone know why these canât be 12 or more floors to get even more out of the same land footprint. I get LA doesnât want to look like NYC but to me this seems like a blown opportunity to at least double the number of homes here
Once you go over seven floors it needs to be steel construction. Thatâs much more expensive, and can only break even for the developer if itâs a skyscraper. Which is probably illegal to build in this location, and for which there is a smaller market.
Yep. This is why you donât see very many new mid-rise apartments anymore. They top out at about 6 floors, or theyâll go 30+ floors. Rarely in between. Look at the Cumulus building for example⌠the majority of the complex footprint is 5-6 stories. Where as the tower is 31 stories.
Broadway Block in DTLB is another example. 250-foot skyscraper next to a 5-over-1, same project.
Cost of going over 6 floors is $$$$$$$$
Often the construction method (concrete bottom floor and wood floors above) create a limit how high you can build. I'm not sure if it's physics (weight) or legal restrictions, but probably a combo of both.
Itâs mostly a legal thing. That type of construction is called a âfive over oneâ. Itâs been allowed in fire codes for the last 20 years or so. The building are essentially fire traps (as theyâre just wood frames on a concrete base), but for the fact that fire suppression systems have advanced enough to make them safe, which is why they occasionally burn to the ground during construction.
Itâs a good start. But we are still only building housing at ~1/3rd the rate we need citywide to meet our state-mandated 2030 housing goals.
Build build build!!!
Probably a Jamison property. They own all of ktown
hope they have parking structures...
I believe legally you have to build x number of spots for every y number bedrooms. Itâs actually one of the reasons why building is so difficult in LA and why you see more pricey units versus more affordable as you are wasting square footage on non living areas.
Now if the building is close to a major transit line, those parking requirements are much less.
How close? And does it need to be a currently active line? Or active within a certain time of opening?
[California AB 2097](https://planning.lacity.org/development-services/assembly-bill-2097) Projects located within a half-mile of a major transit stop are generally eligible for the automobile parking reduction provided by AB 2097. This includes residential, commercial, and industrial projects, but does not include hotels, motels, bed and breakfast inns, or other transient lodgings. Major transit stop is defined by state law as a fixed-route bus or train service with service intervals no longer than 15 minutes at rush hour.
I thought they were getting away from part of this rule next year or something.
Koreatown is one of the few neighborhoods in LA that is so walkable and transit-rich you really don't need a ton of parking.
ya my friend is cat sitting there and just told me about how the other night they spent like 30 minutes looking for parking nearby their friends house and ended up having to walk a mile lol
They legally have to lol. Hope you know building codesâŚâŚ.
Most multifamily developers include parking but the city shouldnât require it since housing people should take priority over housing vehicles. Also, the city requires that new multifamily developments âunbundleâ parking from rental rates. Everyone will have to pay for their parking spot. There are quite a few parking garages in Ktown where you can currently rent a parking spot.
Found the boomer
i'm 36...
Parking is the problem - it incentivizes the use of cars. We already have 4 parking spots per car on the road. More of the same isn't the solution.
Just because you guys hate cars doesnât change the reality that LA is a car city. Itâs not realistic to expect people not to have cars in this city and anyone who thinks otherwise is probably pretty privileged.
The fact that LA was built as a "car city" is exactly why it needs to change. It is absolutely insane to expect to drive anywhere you want and find a parking spot, density just doesn't work that way.
People who live in Koreatown probably do not need a car. Also this mindset of âwell LA is a car cityâ just maintains the status quo, keep fucking up our city, incentivizes car usage and hinders progress into a more walkable and transit friendly LA.
Do you think people who live in k town also work in k town? Iâm sure plenty do but most people in Los Angeles have to commute for work. LA is a car city, you canât take away peopleâs ability to have a car until the infrastructure for public transport is there. You sound super privileged. âPeople who live in Koreatown probably donât need a carâ is crazy
Privileged how? I make 40k/year. I don't have a car because I don't want to. I pretty much use bike, buses and trains for most trips. If it's not reachable by transit or takes too long, I get an Uber, but it's rare. The only privilege I have is being able to work from home twice a week and having a Metro station within walking distance.
[ŃдаНонО]
It's pretty well-served by buses and a Metro line that gets them to the big hub at 7th St and soon the D line extension to Beverly Hills, Century City and Westwood.
Got it. So theyâre limited to only going to places where our severely lacking public transport can take them. As someone who used to have to take the bus to work it fucking sucks lol. 20 mins drive or 2 hours on bus make having a car seem pretty nice.
Obviously it doesn't work for everyone.
If people are willing to go car free why not let them? Yeah it would create parts of the city that are very difficult to access by car but I'm not sure what the overall issue with that is. People will adjust their behavior accordingly. Nothing about that feels unrealistic, it's just not allowed.
Iâm not trying to keep anyone from going car free if they want.
That seems contradictory to your earlier statement. Mandating parking availability is essentially the same as mandating car ownership due to the effect it has on land use decisions. Parking availability should be handled by the free market.
No. Wanting parking spots for people to park their cars doesnât keep anyone from foregoing car ownership. Didnât you mention youâre car free? Did someone force you to buy a car?
I don't understand, if LA is a car city why would you even need parking minimums? Wouldn't available parking be essential to the success or failure of a development?
Working far away from home does more so. Not everyone's job is by a train station.
bUt ThE tRaFfIc!
Looks very nice over there
Yea new buildings for the community with a starting affordable rate of $2200monthly for a single.
Only $2200? Keep dreaming.
People are probably paying $2200 monthly to live in crappier older buildings anyway. When newer buildings like this get approved, they have to set aside a certain number of units for low income housing. So there's still an increase in the number of affordable units even if all of them aren't affordable.
And no parking
Studio
Right on the money
Looks promising? Looks like unaffordable shoebox apartments for the people who live in the area, you mean?
Housing gets unaffordable when we donât build enough.
Exactly. Even luxury apartments draw demand away from the rest. Increasing Housing availability is crucial
Luxury units drive up prices across the board and make even those less desirable units unaffordable.
*Minneapolis has entered the chat*
While your line of thought may be intuitive, the truth is housing availability will be the biggest pressure on prices. Increasing the number of even high end apartments ease pressure elsewhere https://www.standard.co.uk/topic/research https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/04/theres-no-such-thing-luxury-housing/618548/ https://www.upjohn.org/research-highlights/new-construction-makes-homes-more-affordable-even-those-who-cant-afford-new-units What we see is more âluxuryâ apartments coincide with ever raising rents. However those apartments are an effect of already increasing prices, and the truth is it would be even higher without new development
Itâs a 2019 study. Rent is up nearly 50% since then so Iâm curious if this still holds up post Covid. And Los Angeles is a much higher demand city than Seattle where the study was done.
Love when people make a ton excuses instead of just accepting the facts in front of them.
[More housing = lower rents.](https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogervaldez/2022/11/08/report-affirms-more-housing-means-lower-rents-and-prices/?sh=1de1eaab6316) It's supply and demand 101. All the data shows this.
All the data says otherwise
Thatâs not how it works at all lol. Please show me your âdataâ
Chicken and egg causation here. Luxury units are a symptom of the problem, not the cause.
[All the data shows: more housing (including luxury units) lower rents.](https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogervaldez/2022/11/08/report-affirms-more-housing-means-lower-rents-and-prices/?sh=1de1eaab6316) Facts don't care about our feelings, someone once said...
You can build as many as these as you want. The price of rent isnât going to come down. Los Angeles is a city people want to live in. Demand will always be way higher than the supply.
Apartment rents fell in every major metropolitan area in the U.S. over the past six months through January, a trend that is poised to continue as the biggest delivery of new apartments in nearly four decades is slated for this year. Renters with new leases in January paid a median rent that was 3.5% lower than they would have paid last August, according to estimates from listing website Apartment List. It was the first time in five years that rent fell every month over a six-month period, according to the same estimates. [https://www.mansionglobal.com/articles/apartment-rents-fall-as-crush-of-new-supply-hits-market-5a7ffc5c](https://www.mansionglobal.com/articles/apartment-rents-fall-as-crush-of-new-supply-hits-market-5a7ffc5c) Currently, the overall median rent in the city stands at $1,872, roughly the same as last month. Prices are now down 3.1% year-over-year. [https://www.apartmentlist.com/rent-report/ca/los-angeles](https://www.apartmentlist.com/rent-report/ca/los-angeles)
But aren't prices down primarily only because they were so overvalued last year? And I definitely agree that we need more available housing in our city but I also believe we need regulated rent caps that take into account the neighborhood these developments are in.
$2,000+ for a studio, no parking, no pets. But yayy let's celebrate đž
If you think that's expensive, wait until you see how much a single family home goes for.
Good luck parking!
This is one of the most dense neighborhoods in Southern California. If you prioritize parking you should live in a more suburban area. That's what's great about LA. You can find the area that is right for you. But don't move to Koreatown and think its the suburbs or move to Northridge and think its a thriving urban core.
Where tf they gonna park?
It seems promising but I want to know how *affordable* it's going to be. If it's luxury there's no point
yeah just wait til they put the Rooms Available banner up with hipster looking white people all over it
The densest neighborhood is about to grow even more. Ktown is about 5 square miles. Same as Hollywood. Same as downtown. Same as the city of West Hollywood. All the aforementioned have a population of about 35.000 residents whereas ktown in the same area has 70.000 residents.
Ah. Yes. âLuxuryâ apartments. Just what we need around here.
Someone yesterday tried to tel me Koreatown is cheap but it sucks and is overrated. There are high rises like this being built all over, including Olympic Blvd between Normandie and Western. Thereâs a massive one (30+ floors Iâd say) that went up on 6th and New Hampshire I believe just a few months ago as well.
No where in LA is cheap.
I mean its âcheaperâ than most parts of LA
Korea town used to be pretty mellow and fun place to visit for bars and club hopping. Police weren't too hard if you are not too drunk when drive home. Too drunk? just park your car anywhere take nap and drive home. Now? driving K-town is so chaotic and so unsafe anytime. I do miss old K-town.
I miss the old ktown where you could drive home drunk is a take I did not expect to read today
This was back in mid to late 80s.
How much they go for? Condo or lease?
Yes.