VENICE AND THE HISTORIC OAKWOOD COMMUNITY

Venice, California is a coastal neighborhood on the west side of Los Angeles. Economically, Venice Beach is among the largest tourist destinations in Southern California, second only to Disneyland by number of visitors per year. A heterotopia operating outside of the hegemonic order, Venice has been characterized by a counter culture, public art, and speaking truth to power.
However, the space that is Venice means different things to different people. Similar to Italo Calvino’s Invisible Cities, in which one place is a multitude of realities, all true and perhaps somewhat surreal.

Various stakeholders in Venice have advocated for their own interests, continuously shaping the rhetoric; some with greater influence upon government agencies, the Office of Historic Resources, the Department of City Planning, City Council, etc., while others operate within the Neighborhood Council. Sometimes for community members, outcomes are aligned with intentions, while at other times, public policies and processes benefit some but not others. As the saying goes, the road to hell is paved with the best intentions.

Labels, language, and problem definitions.

Oakwood, a label originally employed by the LAPD to designate an area of control, then reappropriated by the community, is generally bounded by Rose Ave to the northwest, Lincoln Blvd to the northeast, California Ave to the southeast, Abbot Kinney to the south, and from Main St to the beach to the west. Oakwood is historically one of the few working class communities of color along LA’s coast.

Venice faces rising housing costs, which contributes to displacement. Longtime residents voice concerns regarding a loss of social capital resulting from policies and procedures on behalf of regulatory agencies. In light of this, the Center for Pacific Urbanism was engaged by a coalition of community members in a comprehensive rational planning effort that includes stakeholder definition of a normative state, empirical data gathering and analysis, alternative scenario development, and evaluation.

The Oakwood community, like many communities of color across the country, faces a history of racial, ethnic, and economic segregation imposed by local authorities and policies: racial covenants, redlining, loan risk categories according to the racial, ethnic, and religious composition of a given area, among others. Generational wealth disparities have resulted from white households historically being afforded institutional supports that were systematically denied to households of color.

Although racial discrimination in housing was made illegal by the Fair Housing Act of 1968, economic segregation through exclusionary zoning policies remains legal. Today, Oakwood communities engage in efforts to define and pursue a normative state amidst recent decades of exclusionary zoning policies that result in residential displacement of different types.

Omission by the Historic Resources SurveyLA

A catalyst of these efforts was the Los Angeles Historic Resources Survey, SurveyLA, which largely omitted Oakwood, where a majority of the Black and Hispanic residents of Venice lived. However, members of the historic Oakwood community organized a coordinated response to the City of Los Angeles’ lack of plans to adequately nurture and advocate for the growth of Oakwood.

A key issue for members of the Oakwood community is the lack of affordable housing, both subsidized and naturally occurring, and the resulting displacement due to rising housing costs, among other forms of displacement, such as the LAPD injunction efforts. Oftentimes, residents resort to housing in outer areas of the LA region, Palmdale, the Inland Empire, etc.

Community members have expressed concerns regarding the loss of community cohesion and economic self-sustainability. Previously, neighborhood corner stores, markets, and businesses maintained a vibrant local economy, provided services to, and employed residents. Neighborly business owners would establish informal credit systems, creating a community-based safety net. Now, residents and businesses continue to be displaced, the ability for the local Oakwood community is deteriorated.

Longtime residents of Oakwood have criticized new developments of creating a hostile physical environment by building large barriers such as concrete walls or opaque fences along property lines. Instead, residents propose a focus on open public spaces throughout the neighborhood, particularly children’s recreational spaces and public circulation such as walk streets.

Other concerns voiced by Oakwood community members include the recognition, preservation, and restoration of community-identified historically significant sites, the strengthening of educational & workforce capacity development, continued preservation of spiritual & social club spaces, maintenance of spaces for public enjoyment and circulation, the use of eminent domain by local authorities, parking as a hindrance to housing and coastal access, the concentration of poverty through neglect in public housing systems, the prominence of gated and otherwise segregated communities, the reduction of housing capacity and other regulatory takings, the unequal application of the Mello Act and other procedures which hinder the supply of dwelling units, the use of small lot subdivisions to decentralize the ownership of property, the loss of cultural space and identity, a decreasing ability for working and middle class residents to stay within the community, mechanisms to provide justice to those already displaced from the community, economic uncertainty among those still residing in Venice, the use of racially discriminatory gang injunctions by the Los Angeles Police Department, and the overall exclusion of Oakwood community members in decisions and procedures by local planning authorities on the future of Venice.

Pacific Urbanism has supported the Oakwood community’s efforts to self-determination by providing relevant research on historical and current trends in Venice:

• The population and housing capacity of the Venice Community Plan Area has been reduced to 50% of its capacity in 1960 through the successive community plan updates.

• In order to reach its housing target, as an allocation of the city-wide 456,000 net new dwelling units, Venice must produce 15,529 net new dwelling units by 2029

• 25,230 people commute to and from Venice every day. Of the 10,289 workers who commute to Venice from other neighborhoods and cities, 1,066 (9.2%) travel a distance greater than 50 miles to work every day.

• Oakwood saw the highest percentage increases in housing prices (351-468%) as a function of sale price per square foot of any neighborhood in Venice between 1996 and 2015.

• During the same 1996-2015 period, Oakwood saw far less dwelling unit production than the “Venice Peninsula” and the “Oxford Triangle” districts of Venice.

• Transit Oriented Communities would require large 231’ tall buildings in order to provide a 50% increase in housing within the areas designated for TOC-tiers in Venice

• Although buildings with 2-24 units make up 61.7% of all housing stock in Oakwood, construction of these building types has decreased since the 1960s. From 1960-1969, 2-24 unit building types provided 97.8% of all dwelling units constructed, while from 2010-2016 these same building types provided only 10.3% of dwelling units.

Our results indicate an urgent need for local policy change, as well as a greater inclusion of working and middle class residents in the planning efforts of municipal agencies. Accordingly, Pacific Urbanism recommends the following measures be taken:

• Allow the production of naturally occurring affordable housing by allowing buildings with between two to 24 dwelling units as described in the following point.

• Re-classify the density of areas and/or by changing the definition of zoning classifications in ways that restore the pre-downzoning capacity.

• Remove hindrances to medium density, low-rise building type by remove setbacks and parking minimums.

• Foster the development of neighborhood capacity to produce accessory, infill, and subdivision of dwelling units.

• Expedite the division of larger multiple-bedroom units into two or more units to create more affordable rentals.

• Foster individual units of ownership, such as condominiums, which would contribute to the broadest range of homeownership and investment in the local economy.

• Incentivize smaller units including single room occupancy (SRO) and other innovative low-cost, transportation-efficient prefabricated construction.

• Recognize and preserve sites significant to the community’s cultural heritage and history.

• Maintain adequate public spaces for public enjoyment and circulation