In the rush to rebuild, one topic is taboo: What should be built differently — or not at all?
Even as the flames still raged, the impulse to quickly restore two devastated communities to what they once were became a political imperative.
First Gov. Gavin Newsom, then Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, issued orders designed to speed the rebuilding of damaged and destroyed homes by stripping away bureaucratic and regulatory obstacles.
As urgent as that show of determination felt to many, it has critics among architects, urban planners and academics who would rather see public officials slow down and think deliberately about how to make the communities more resistant to future fires — and contribute more to the region’s affordable housing needs.
“If we just build back the way it was, it’s definitely a missed opportunity,” said Liz Falletta, an architect and professor in the USC Sol Price School of Public Policy. “It’s a missed opportunity to think differently about these things.”
More bluntly, Mark Ryavec, a former L.A. City Council legislative analyst and now acerbic critic of City Hall, is calling for a dead stop on rebuilding in Palisades “without first examining what happened there and applying lessons that may be learned to reform building codes and significantly increase the capacity of the local firefighting water system.”
