Just when you think it cannot get any worse in LA, it does. Why 333 S. LaCienega is such a striking example of bad city planning.
By Dick Platkin* “Look ma, no cars at one of the most congested intersections in Los Angeles.” Several weeks ago in Can the Cheap Perfume of "Approve with Conditions" Mask the Stink of Bad Planning? I explained how the real purpose of lengthy “conditions of approval” for large, controversial real estate projects, like 333 S. LaCienega, is to neutralize community opposition. These endless promises are intended to defuse challenges to mega-projects, like the one pictured above in a shorter form than proposed. These promises, transformed into “conditions of approval,” are nearly worthless, but often succeed in persuading neighborhood critics to drop their opposition to bad projects. This sordid process thrives in Los Angeles because decision makers routinely approve controversial projects once they receive campaign contributions and once community opposition has been sidelined by developer promises. In these situations, the decision makers never bot