Manhattan project? It's demand that's driving L.A.'s growth, not developer domination.

THERE are areas of Los Angeles that are becoming increasingly dense. The transformation has been described as the Manhattanization of Los Angeles. This is a subject that deserves discussion--though it has been previously discussed and I was part of that discussion 31 years ago.

Back in 1976, the 19 members of the Citizens Advisory Committee on the Redevelopment of the Central Business District, which I chaired, discussed how L.A. had developed in concentric circles expanding out from the downtown area over the years. We discussed whether it was time to try to break that cycle and bring people back to live in the downtown area. I thought it was a good idea. It took 31 years but that is exactly what is happening today.

Today, it has been said that the big developers are increasingly dominating and politicizing land-use decisions. While this is correct, the only thing that is new is that the developers are now bigger than the developers in the past. Nothing has changed except for the size of projects, and if their bigger dreams work, I think it will be to the benefit of Los Angeles.

People may criticize the size of the developments and proposed developments, but I would ask every reader to consider this: If developers built projects for which there was no demand, what would happen to the developers? They wouldn't be in business long, right? Therefore, isn't it a fact that it is the demand that drives the development and not the developers?

Despite the current frenzy of building con dominiums, especially downtown and on the Westside, there isn't one new high-rise office building being built. Office rentals are going through the roof to the detriment of the medium and small professional firms. Now, that is a problem that should be discussed also.

Complex game

It is said that smaller builders are having problems dealing with today's complex political game. From my viewpoint, the problems facing the smaller builders are the complexities of local architectural review boards, neighborhood councils, home owner groups and the NIMBYs, all of whom have unbelievable power to stall a project, driving costs up for the smaller builders. I speak from personal experience.

I am the first to agree that developers have to be regulated by the city to make sure they do not go overboard, but there is also a degree of reasonableness that has to be applied. I have seen totally unreasonable requests made of small and medium-size developers.

There is an effort to recall Councilman Jack Weiss because he approved two 47-story condominium projects. In 1969, I first looked at the model of Century City and there were two high-rise buildings planned for that property. They were office buildings instead of condominiums. It is obvious that a condominium will create less traffic than a similar-sized office building. What the homeowners want is no development on that property or the control of the $5 million mitigation fund offered by the developer.

When the opposition thought they were going to have control of the money, they withdrew their opposition. When they discovered that Weiss and the City of Los Angeles were going to control the money, they were suddenly opposed again. It isn't the density; it's who controls the money that is the major factor on this project.

Some Angelenos think that adding density to our already crowded region won't necessarily improve the "quality of life." "Quality of Life" is my favorite line, used by everyone who wants to stop everything. When I hear it my blood curdles.

"Quality of Life" as defined by whom? Are we talking about life in Los Angeles as it was in 1950 or are we talking about a "Quality of Life" that requires continuing new definitions as the years go by and the population increases?

Where are we to put the 3 million-plus people who are going to be added to our county population over the next 30 or 40 years? You know they are not all going to be people who have entered our country illegally. A great many of them are going to be your children and grandchildren who have not yet been born, as well as all those little kids you see in our elementary schools who are growing up and will be going out on their own.

A NIMBY recently said to me that Century City should never have been built and I asked one simple question: Where would those 50,000 people have found a job or opened their own business or professional office?

He didn't have an answer.

Harold L. Katz is a partner in a CPA firm and a citizen activist. He lives on the Westside.