West Hollywood’s Tom Atwood – photographer of note and urban thinker. By Ryan Gierach. |
When talking to Tom Atwood about his book of photography and his love of West Hollywood, we uncovered a determined urban thinker who happens to love city life. Given his provocative ideas on the subject we assigned Robert Burnside to discuss urban planning in West Hollywood with Mr. Atwood, a New York transplant with decidedly pro-growth, pro-density ideas. Ever interested in bringing West Hollywood provocative views and ideas, WeHoNews.com proudly publishes this interview with an innovative urban thinker.
RB: Why did you move to WeHo and what is it about WeHo that attracts you?
I moved here from New York a few years ago because I'm enchanted with this city. The weather played a large role, but I also adore cities with hills and love being a part of Hollywood. It's hard to speak of WeHo without mentioning LA, and many of the reasons why I’m here also have to do with a fascination with LA as a whole. I used to live in San Francisco, as well, but frankly, I find the people in the WeHo area more interesting - more cosmopolitan and dynamic.
Thirty years ago, San Francisco may have been more of a cultural center than LA, but now, LA has more going for it, in my opinion. It’s funny that since I've moved here, I've had about 15 friends from New York follow in suit. I guess a lot of people are figuring this out.
These people stand against high rise development, while Tom Atwood and others encourage it as the only real solution to the pressures applied to the area. Ryan Gierach. |
RB: I hear through the grapevine that you have ideas on urban development that are strikingly different from most others' in West Hollywood. Tell us what you think the city should do in this regard.
I think that any city needs to make a choice. It can either remain suburban or it can blossom into a vibrant, urban community. But it can't be both because the two are fundamentally at odds. Suburban areas, which are car-oriented, by definition need to be sprawling to be convenient because if things are spread out, it is easier to park and easier to drive. Urban areas on the other hand, which are pedestrian-oriented, need to be dense to be convenient so that public transportation can come more frequently and it takes less long to walk places. A city needs to decide which it wants to be; being both doesn’t work.
In the case of WeHo and LA, this decision is being made for us because the population is growing so rapidly. With this many people, we are simply running out of space and are forced to build up. An ideal solution, I think, would be to designate an area as an urban core - say, from Downtown to Santa Monica, which would include WeHo, in which high-density development is encouraged, but to enforce low-density building restrictions outside of this core.
That way communities such as the Valley or Palos Verdes could remain suburban, if they wish. If people want that type of a lifestyle, they can remain or move to one of the suburbs. But for those who want a more sophisticated lifestyle and city, the urban core would evolve into this.
Council member John Duran has called for a subway stop in West Hollywood. By Ryan Gierach. |
I should point out that in order for an urban core such as this to work, we would need better public transportation. And this needs to be rail, not at grade, because busses get clogged in traffic. But LA's mayor is working on this - with construction underway on the Exposition Line from downtown / USC to Santa Monica, and progress being made overcoming obstacles to the Red Line extension under Wilshire to Santa Monica. I believe Senator Waxman even supports the Red Line extension, now. If we just had one other East West line, say, under Santa Monica Boulevard, we could have rapid North-South busses from each stop. Then, as with Manhattan, we could get anywhere within this urban core quickly, especially during rush hour, when commuting would become more convenient because public transportation would run more frequently.
RB: So why should WeHo encourage development?
Well, in the case of LA overall, we actually don't have a choice but to become more urban because the population is increasing so rapidly. We have pro-immigration policies as a country, which I support. This isn't China, so there are no population controls in place. (Maybe the Pope should wake up and encourage birth control?) Our economic philosophy - capitalism - is also a growth-oriented system, whether we like it or not. And the US is a free society.
With more and more individuals choosing to live in LA, we have to house people somewhere, and suburban subdivisions have hit the mountain ranges, so there is no space left to build but up.
Examples of mixed use abound in WeHo, but too many disincentives to building such projects now keep developers out. By Ryan Gierach. |
And I am comfortable with this because there are so many benefits to urban living: Housing becomes more affordable when supply can adequately reflect demand. The more red tape and restrictions we place on construction, the more expensive housing becomes for our teachers, our nurses and all of us. I think it is very selfish when one small community restricts development without considering how it effects our population as a whole.
More urban housing is more environmentally friendly. It eats up less land, pavement, pipes and wires per person. It is cheaper and more ecological for us to be walking and taking public transportation. We might as well get used to this now, as globally, we are rapidly approaching the peak of the earth’s supply of oil. China, Brazil, India and other rapidly-industrializing nations are starting to compete with the West for oil at the same time that supply starts to dwindle. So in our lifetimes, we will see enormous increases in the cost of oil and gas. We should definitely encourage alternative, green energy sources, but from what I've read, conservation will also be required just given how large our energy appetite is.
Urban living is more social by nature. We run into people more often when on foot. We get greater exposure to individuals from varying socio-economic strata.
I personally find urban areas more aesthetically pleasing than the parking lots and strip malls that suburban living requires. Am I the only one embarrassed by having to show out of town guests La Cienega Boulevard?
La Cienega southbound from Holloway. By Ryan Gierach. |
WeHo and our Hollywood-glam citizens have lofty ambitions and we deserve a great city in which to express these. Great cities don't evolve unless we let them. We need to allow and even encourage our neighborhoods to re-invent and redevelop themselves. Can you imagine how dull France would be if the French hadn't allowed Haussman to redesign Paris, or if the Catalan's hadn't allowed Cerda to proceed with his grand plans for Barcelona? Or how about New York - would it be as vibrant as it is today if we hadn't allowed a subway to go in or hadn't allowed buildings over four stories?
You know, WeHo and LA also have the perfect climate for public transportation and urban living. Isn't it ironic that most of this country's cities with good public transportation systems - New York, Chicago, Boston - are in cold and rainy climates?
RB: Interesting! So what kinds of development would you encourage?
Mixed-use. Offices and/or residential above street-level retail on the main boulevards, all residential on the more quite side streets. I believe this is what our forward-thinking West Hollywood city planners have in mind. But I wouldn't place restrictions on height. The higher we can build, the more affordable housing will become in the long run for all of us and the more dynamic our pedestrian street life will become.
This stretch of Sunset and Vine had shot up in recent years. By Ryan Gierach. |
And it can be beautiful. I think many people in the US often confuse density with ugliness, because the decades when this started to happen on a grand scale – the 60s and 70s – happened to have really ugly architecture. But if you take a look at some of the large buildings going up now in Pasadena or, say, Frankfurt in Germany, you’ll see how gorgeous density can be.
RB: And what about traffic and parking?
I can understand why many feel so strongly about this. There's certainly nothing wrong with allowing developers to continue to build parking structures underground. But I wouldn't require it. I would encourage people obsessed with traffic and whether they will be able to find a place to park to think with a less myopic mindset and take a broader, longer-term perspective. If people need minimal traffic and convenient parking, perhaps they should live in Torrance rather than WeHo? If people want to live in a community frozen it time that will not change and evolve, perhaps they should return to Arkansas?
Personally, I would like to see less parking and more traffic so that it forces us to question whether our current mode of living makes sense and hopefully forces us out of our cars. You know, someone recently told me about Aveda's plans to build a training center on Santa Monica Boulevard near Havenhurst. The project was dinged due to insufficient parking. How sad is that? Who wouldn't have wanted a great company like Aveda to bring its talent to our community?
Tom Atwood is a photographer based in West Hollywood with a recently-published book, 'Kings in Their Castles'. For more on Atwood and to view his work, visit TomAtwood.com.
Printer-friendly
E-mail to friend
