University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Population pressure and its effect on the land use pattern and land valuations in Los Angeles County from 1940 to 1953

(USC Thesis Other)

Population pressure and its effect on the land use pattern and land valuations in Los Angeles County from 1940 to 1953

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content POPULATION PRESSURE AND ITS EFFECT ON THE LAND USE
PATTERN AND LAND'VALUATIONS IN LOS ANGELES
COUNTY FROM 1940 TO 1953
A Thesis
Presented to
The Department of Finance
The University of Southern California
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Master of Science in Real Estate
hy
Paul Davis
February, 1954
UMI Number: EP65352
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
ûlsswtaïion WMisKng
UMI EP65352
Published by ProQuest LLC (2014). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author.
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106 - 1346
0 3
This thesisj written by
Paul Davis
under the guidance of h±s....Facuity Committeej
and approved hy all its members, has been
presented to and accepted by the Council on
Graduate Study and Research in partial fullfill-
ment of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Science in Real Estate
D a te ^ . .ÿfOfi.
Faculty Committee
Chairman
TABLE OP CONTENTS
CHAPTER PAGE
I. THE PROBLEM AND ITS SETTING............. I
Introduction ............... 1
The statement of the problem......... 3
Sources and methods .................... 5
Review of previous studies ........... 7
Organization of the thesis ........... 8
II. THE SITE OP LOS ANGELES.................. 10
Topography and climate ............... 11
Summary of land u s e s .................. 13
Los Angeles County totals ........... 15
Urban and non-urban pattern .... 16
The major land uses............... 17
Commercial ............. 17
Industrial-manufacturing .... 19
Residential................. 20
Agricultural .................... 21
Vacant lands ............. 22
Streets and highways........... 23
The sixteen economic areas .... 24
Area number 1. The San Fernando
V a l l e y ........................ 24
iv
CHAPTER PAGE
Area number 2. Glendale.......... 25
Area number 3* Pasadena.......... 26
Area number 4. Pomona-Foothill . . 26
Area number 5* San Gabriel • • . . 27
Areas numbers 6 and 7* Northeast
and E a s t ........................ 27
Area number 8. Central............ 28
Area number 9* Wilshire......... 29
Area number 10. Hollywood .... 29
Area number 11. Beverly Hills . . 29
Area number 12. Santa Monica Bay . 30
Area number 13* Inglewood-Adams . 31
Area number 14. Compton-Southeast 31
Area number 15* Whittier-Norwalk . 32
Area number 16. South Coast . . . 32
Differences in area development . . . 33
Summary................................. 35
III. POPULATION ..'... 37
Historical background .................. 38
The overall g r o w t h .................... 39
A summary of Los Angeles County
population statistics . . . . . . . . 4l i
Los Angeles County totals 42 j
Los Angeles City totals............. 43
CHAPTER
Males and females in the population .
Age grouping of the population . . .
Employment statistics .............
Density of the population ...........
Dwelling units and population .. . .
Population statistics of the sixteen
economic areas ......................
Area number 1. The San Fernando
Valley . ........................
Area number 2. Glendale ...........
Area number 3» Pasadena ...........
Area number 4. Pomona-Foothill . . .
Area number 5. San Gabriel .........
Areas numbers 6 and 7* Northeast and
E a s t ...............................
Area number 8. Central .............
Area number 9- Wilshire ...........
Area number 10, Hollywood .........
Area number 11. Beverly Hills • . .
Area number 12. Santa Monica Bay . .
Area number 13* Inglewood-Adams . .
Area number l4. Compton-Southeast
Area number 15. Whittier-Norwalk . .
Area number 16. South Coast ....
V
PAGE
45
46
50
52
55
58
58
59
60
61
61
62
63
64
65
66
66
67
68
68
69
Vi
CHAPTER PAGE
Overall area trends......... 70
Summary....................... 72
IV. DOWNTOWN VERSUS THE SUBURBS .... .. . 74
What is downtown?............ 75
The paradoxical decline............. . 78
Statistics on the component parts . . . 79
Assessed valuations . . . ... 79
Population................ 8l
Retail sales ........................ 84
Department store sales ............. 85
Banks and bank deposits... 85
Factors causing the decline .... 86
Inability to adjust to the era of the
automobile.............. 87
Poor land use pattern . . . . . . . . 87
Rise of the outlying communities . . 88
Competition.......................... 88
Demands of executives ................ 88
Geography and climate ............... 89
Summation..................... 89
V. CHANGING LAND VALUES IN SELECTED DOWNTOWN
RESIDENTIAL AREAS ......... ...... 92
Methods of value measure ............. 93
Findings..................... 94
vil
CHAPTER PAGE
The Westlake section ............... 95
Population statistics............... 96
Assessed valuation ............... 99
The Ambassador section................ 100
Population statistics............... 101
Assessed valuation . .......... 103
The residential section of downtown • . 104
Summation............................... IO3
VI. LOS ANGELES COUNTY TO I960 . ......... 109
The test area........................... 110
The Ambassador section .... ... 110
The Westlake Section............... Il4
The downtown business district .... II9
The trend from rural to urban......... 123
Los Angeles County in the next seven
years................................. 126
Summation............................... I30
BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................... 132
APPENDIX........................................ 138
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE PAGE
I. Comparative Age Grouping of the United
States and Los Angeles County, 1950 . . 47
II. Comparative Age Grouping of the Population
of Los Angeles County for 1940 and 1950 49
III. Comparative Figures of Employed Males and
Females in Los Angeles County, 1940 and
1950 ................................. 51
IV. Comparative Summary Statistics on Persons
per Square Mile in Los Angeles County for
1940, 1950, and 1953 ........... 54
V. Comparative Summary Statistics on Persons
per Dwelling Unit in Los Angeles County
for 1940, 1950, and 1953 ............. f#
VI. Comparative Summary Statistics on Dwelling
Units in Los Angeles County, for 1940,
1 9 5 0, and 1 9 5 2 ........................... 57
VII. Postwar Construction in the Los Angeles
Downtown A r e a ........................... 82
VIII. Map of Los Angeles County . .......... 139
IX. Grouping of A r e a s ........................ 140
IX
TABLE PAGE
X. Summary of Land Uses for the South
Portion of Los Angeles County (1940) l4l
XI. Summary of Land Uses for the South
Portion of Los Angeles County—
April 30, 1953 . . . / ............. 143
XII. Comparison (1940 to 1953) of the Changes
in the Amount of Area Devoted to the
Given Land Uses in the South Portion
of Los Angeles County................... l45
XIII. Urban and Non-urban Land Uses for the
South Portion of Los Angeles County
for 1940 147
XIV. Urban and Non-urban Land Uses for the
South Portion of Los Angeles County
for April 30, 1953 149
XV. Comparison (1940 to 1953) of the
Changes in the Amount Devoted to Urban
and to Non-urban Land Uses in the
South Portion of Los Angeles County . I5I
XVI. Population of the City and County of
Los Angeles (1769 to 1953) ..... 153
XVII. Population Changes of Los Angeles City
and County (1940 to 1953) ....... 155
TABLE
XVIII. Density of the Population of Los
Angeles County (1940 to 1953) ....
XIX. Dwelling Units in Los Angeles County
(1940 to 1953) ......................
XX. Persons per Dwelling Unit in Los
Angeles County (1940 to 1953) ....
XXI. Los Angeles Downtown Assessed Valuation
per Front Foot for 1950 .......
XXII. Total Retail Sales for Los Angeles
County (1 9 2 9 to 1952) ...........
XXIII. Total Department Store Sales for Los
Angeles County (1929 to 1952) ....
XXIV. Total Bank Deposits for Los Angeles
County (1 934 to 1952) ...............
XXV. Population Statistics; A Comparison of
Selected Sections of Central Districts
with Los Angeles County and City
(1 9 5 0) ..................... ■ .........
XXVI. Comparison of the Assessed Values of
Land Zoned R-3, R-4, and R-5 ih the
Westlake and Ambassador Areas (Los
Angeles, 1940 and 1953) .............
XXVII. Estimated Population and Dwelling Units
for I9 6O: Los Angeles County ....
X
PAGE
157
158
160
161
163
164
165
166
168
169
PREFACE
This thesis has attempted to analyze the effect
of the tremendous increase in population experienced by
Los Angeles County during the thirteen year period from
1940 to 1953 on land use and land values.
It is hoped that this study may add to the fund
of research data needed by land planners, real estate
brokers and operators, teachers of real estate, and all
others who find active or passing interest in the study
of the life of Los Angeles County.
Many individuals and organizations in the Los
Angeles County area have given freely and willingly of
their time, their guidance and their assistance to the
end that this study might make a scientific and positive
contribution to the growing store of knowledge about the
city and county of Los Angeles.
Special mention should be made of Miss Dorothy
Tabber who devoted much time and effort to editing this
thesis.
The reader is urged to consider that this treatise
is offered as a master's thesis, not a masterpiece. If
it serves only to provoke thought or add a small bit of
new data about our community, Los Angeles County, its
purpose will have been accomplished.
A x
M.’ JAV
\
%
UbS
City of County of
Lo$ Angole* Los Angeles
Population 2 .1 0 0,00 0 * 4 .5 7 0 ,0 0 0 *
453 So Miles 4 ,0 8 3 Sq. M iles
FRONTISPIECE; TOPOGRAPHY OP LOS ANGELES
CHAPTER I
THE PROBIÆM AND ITS SETTING
I. INTRODUCTION
Some of the greatest changes in the prices asked
and paid for land in Los Angeles County have occurred in
the decade of great population growth from 1940 to 1 9 5 0.
Shifts in land use and land values are continuing into
the decade of the 1 9 5 0's.
These changes are the theme which has provoked
many serious discussions among real estate brokers and
operators in recent years. Coupled with changes in price
has been a continued tendency toward a major change in
land use. Specialists who have been in real estate
activity in this area for from fifteen to twenty years
report that today people are living in areas which were
formerly considered marginal and submarginal.
Los Angeles County has developed into the core
of a leading standard metropolitan area. The growth
of population, industry, and commercial facilities
has been phenomenal. The population^ and income
^ In 1940 there were 2,785,643 people and in 1953,
2
growth has pressed steadily on the land and has forced
an Intensified use of land in the construction of many
thousands of new industrial and commercial structures,
and hundreds of thousands of new residential structures.
This astounding growth has had an impressive
effect upon raan-land ratios, and has placed great press
ure on existing methods of utilizing available space.
What were once open fields have become major cities; viz.,
Lakewood which has acquired more than 100,000 in popula
tion within the three years of 1950 to 1953* What was
once open road has become city street with heavy traffic
congestion. A social problem in the movement of human
4,6 3 4,6 2 2, an increase of 1,848,979— a rise of 66 per
cent in thirteen years. Los Angeles County added more
people to its population in this thirteen-year period
than did the entire state of Texas or New York (Monthly
Summary, Security First National Bank, Los Angeles,
California, May, 1953)-
2
“Indicators of the growth trend in this area
are legion. Today, Los Angeles County has roughly twice
as many civil aircraft as any other county in the nation
The Los Angeles standard metropolitan area ranks third
in the nation in bank deposits. Income of civilian
residents of Los Angeles County has risen from $2,3 8 2,
0 0 0 ,0 0 0 in 1940 to $9,5 7 0,0 0 0 ,0 0 0 in 1 9 5 2, an increase
of $7,1 6 8,0 0 0,0 0 0, or 300 per cent, in twelve years.
Total retail sales were $1,314,000,000 in 1940 and
$5,8 3 0,0 0 0 ,0 0 0 in 1 9 5 2. • The Security-First National
Bank index of business activity on a base of 100 for
1940 has reached an all-time high of 400 in 1953" (The
Growth and Economic Stature of the Los Angeles Area, a
six-page special bulletin issued by the Security-First
National Bank, Los Angeles, California, June 2, 1953).
3
beings has been accentuated by pouring millions of
people into the geographic limits of Los Angeles County.
II. THE STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
The growth of population caused by a mass in-
migration has been one of the major factors contributing
to the development of this area and to the alteration in
the pattern of land use. The scope of this study pre
cludes consideration of other major factors in this
overall growth pattern.
When millions of people and billions of invest
ment dollars pour into a county land space which cannot
be expanded, intensive development must take place.
Thus, for the first time in its long history of rapid
population growth, Los Agneles County faces the need
for major shifts in its land use pattern to provide for
more intense use of its land spaces.
A major subproblem is the alteration of the
physical base into which have come masses of people,
huge new industries, and some of the world's largest
commercial developments. This alteration has been ac
complished by making use of former flooded areas, of
hills that were thought inaccessible or uninhabitable,
and of distant ranches and onetime citrus groves. Few
areas in the country have witnessed so rapid a change-
0
4
over in land use within so short a time.
The physical numbers and density of the popula
tion of the area are significant in altering the land
use pattern and, concurrently, land value. Yet the
human element and social habit patterns still prevail,
in spite of the very evident need for more intensive
land use. Los Angeles residents and new arrivals tend
to prefer single family dwellings and comfortable and
spacious outdoor living. A strong desire to continue
extensive or horizontal type growth is evident. Slowly
the pressure of people on each other for living space
and the shortage of available land may be forcing a
change in this perspective.
The insistence upon horizontal growth has created
many problems. A most significant outgrowth is the
problem of the relative decline of the downtown business
district or, as is most commonly expressed, the problem
of "downtown versus the suburbs." This trend is measured
by the decline in total assessed valuation, the decrease
in total population, and the diminishing sales by mer
chants of the downtown area. Actually, this is part of
the changing land use pattern.
Analyses of land use are especially useful as
indices of what may be expected to develop in the fore
seeable future of possibly a decade hence. At times.
5
the full significance of the changes of the 1940-1953
period are best seen in relation to what appears to be
coming by i960.
III. SOURCES AND METHODS
This is a case study of a county which is one of
the country's largest and richest. It is an on-the-spot
accounting and a bringing up-to-date. At the same time,
it uses historical analysis, some graphic presentations
and comparisons, and some looking forward. Thus, the
method of study is both general and particular.
Major sources of data studies on other cities, as
well as the planning studies and reports of Los Angeles
City and County, are incorporated as background material
in this report. Federal governmental publications on
Los Angeles population, housing, industry, and other com
ponents appearing in book, pamphlet, and periodical
literature, and California State publications, are also
used.
Important correlation of these reports and docu
ments has been effected by personal interviews with
leading planners, realtors, land buyers and sellers,
educators, businessmen, and economic analysts of this
area. Experience as an active buyer and seller of land
is also burned to advantage. Market research reports
6
and statistical area and census tract information are
all utilized.
In its overall aspects, it is intended that this
work shall be more than a mere recital of fact, but
possibly a contribution to a scientific examination of
the urban problems of the Los Angeles County area.
Of the variously combined methods employed, the
technique of the field interview has been central in
this thesis. This method was used because of the belief
that, over the long pull, the direct relations of student
with experts in the field can produce the best results
in summarization or recital of fact, and in interpreta
tion and analysis. A studied effort has been made to
dig out materials from primary sources, in many cases
from data not previously added up or assembled for pub
lication. Against the field interviews and on-the-spot
assembly of previously ungathered materials, the recourse
to secondary sources of information, many of them out-
of-date, has been held to a minimum.
Thus, by combining, lively and current sources,
some of the vitality and pioneering spirit of the City
of the Angels will, it is hoped, be reflected in this
study.
7
IV. REVIEW OP PREVIOUS STUDIES
Many excellent studies have been made of the Los
Angeles area. Particularly noteworthy is Robbins'
3
Los Angeles— Preface to ^ Master Plan. The planning
commissions of the city and county have excellent and
detailed^-reports which are valuable to the study of the
growth of Los Angeles County. Studies completed by the
Haynes Foundation are basic reference works. Research
materials compiled and reported by the Security-First
National Bank of Los Angeles are also important for
their up-to-date data on the economic life of the county.
Although many of the existing works are well written,
they are out-of-date in relation to land use and land
values. Those that are current cover (or relate to)
only small areas.
This discussion proposes to contribute an overall
picture of the current land use pattern, and an explana
tion for the rising land values in this exploding Los
Angeles area.
3
George W. Robbins, Los Angeles--Preface to a
Master Plan (Los Angeles, CaXifornia: The Pacific South
west Academy,.1 9 4 1).
8
V. ORGANIZATION OF THE THESIS
This thesis includes six chapters. The introduc
tory chapter contains a statement of the problem, a re
view of previous studies, a general overview of the
structure of the report and of its method of study.
The second chapter describes the geographic
characteristics of the Los Angeles site. The city's
physical appearance from the time of the first settlers
to its 1953 development is shown, together with an
analysis of the variations in land use.
Chapter three treats of population by all-county
totals. Statistical compilations covering 1953 are in
cluded.
The subject of downtown versus the suburbs in the
development of Los Angeles is treated in chapter four,
which reviews the important problem of decentralization
as it affects the downtown Los Angeles area.
The fifth chapter selects for analysis two sections
of multi-residential - land lying a few miles west of the
downtown business district and uses them as a test area.
They are pictured physically and from an assessed valua
tion point of view as they were in 1940. Then, in con
trast, the 1953 situation is shown, thus comparing the
area with its own past and with the county as a whole.
9
The final chapter presents a summarization of
the discussion of the major trends in population, land
use, and land values; based upon the findings of the
study a number of conclusions are drawn.
CHAPTER II
THE SITE OF LOS ANGELES
The land and the people of Los Angeles have
followed successively more complex patterns since the
days of the original pueblo. Topography guided the
hands of the original "city planners." Today, however,
man seeks to change nature’s topography in more con
sciously guided ways. While the basic site remains
relatively unaltered, recent years have witnessed the
bringing in of water and the removal of so formidable
a barrier as Fort Moore, a massive hill which blocked
off downtown Los Angeles to the north and west.
The purpose of this chapter is to establish the
physical cadre or skeleton of the region, including its
geographic setting. Topography and climate are discussed
The major part of the chapter is devoted to a review of
the predominant land uses prevailing in the county and
in each of the sixteen major economic areas that, to
gether, comprise the southern portion of the County of
Los Angeles.
11
I. TOPOGRAPHY AND CLIMATE
From.north to south, Los Angeles County measures
about seventy-five miles; from east to west, about seven
ty miles. This gives, roughly, a land area of 4.083
square miles, or 2,605,440 acres, an area only one-fifth
smaller than the state of Rhode Island.
The Los Angeles area is in reality a composite
of three distinct physical regions; a vast desert plain
at the north, a diversified lowland or "plain" at the
south which has been made into a living area by its in-
■ 1
habitants, and a mountainous zone physically dividing
the north from the south, extending from the Pacific
Ocean at the west to the eastern limits of the county
line.
The heart of the Los Angeles area, in terras of
economics and population, is the southern portion of
Los Angeles County— i.e., that part south of the San
Gabriel Mountains. It is called the Los Angeles Plain
and borders the Pacific Ocean from Santa Monica to
Newport and extend inland east to Redlands. Several
basins and valleys make up this plain.
George W. Robbins, Los Angeles--Preface to a
Master Plan (Los “ Angeles, California: The Pacific South-
west Academy,. 1 9 4 1), pp. 16-17*
12
2
The San Fernando Valley covers about 258 square
miles, or 6.3 per cent, of the county's area. The San
Gabriel Valley is slightly larger, covering 278 square
miles, or 6 .8 per cent of the county's area. The coastal
plain, which extends southward from the Santa Monica-
Hollywood range of mountains contains 697 square miles,
or 1 7 .1 per cent of the county's area. Therefore, the
population is centered in a little more than one-fourth
of the total county area— i.e., in 1233 square miles.
Of this total, 744 square miles are in 45 incorporated
communities, 453.4 miles of that total representing Los
Angeles City.
About 47 per cent of the total county area is
mountainous. Active faults or earth rifts are charac
teristic of most of the Pacific Coast, and are influ
enced by the mountains. The latter also exert an in
fluence on climatic conditions of the lowlands, feeding
the rivers and aiding in areal distribution of rainfall.
The San Gabriel and the Los Angeles rivers flow from
the mountains across the coastal plain into the sea in
winter, but are dry most of the year. However, they can
2
What is commonly called the San Fernando Valley
is in reality that Valley plus the slightly smaller
Sunland-Tujunga Plateau.
13
become turbulent in winter as a result of heavy rains
and melting snows, making flood control a major issue
in this region. Annual rainfall averages 15*1 inches,
and is not usually more than 20 or less than 10 inches.
There is little question that a principal attrac
tion of Los Angeles County is its climate. The United
States Weather Bureau describes it as "one of the most
equable climates in the United States." It is a typi
cally Mediterranean clime, i.e., a cool climate with a
warm sun. There is a considerable range of temperatures
at the seaside and plains and mountains. The ocean acts
as a natural air conditioning unit for the littoral of
Southern California. The area enjoys sunshine on 72 per
cent of its total possible yearly time. These favorable
weather conditions attracted most of the area’s popula
tion in earlier days, and is highly important in the
present in-migration and tourist trade.
II. SUMMARY OF LAND USES
By 1 9 4 0, Los Angeles County had achieved a land
- ^ 3
use pattern with a wide range of applications. It had
3
For a fairly comprehensive review of the pat
tern of land use development from the beginnings of Los
Angeles in 1771 to 1940, the reader is urged to review
the excellent report by the Title Insurance and Trust
Company of Los Angeles entitled Panorama, a Picture
14
been transformed from a predominantly rural area into
one of the outstanding metropolitan aggregations of the
nation. Yet, it was still a major agricultural and
recreational county as well.
The physical makeup of the land use of this
"metropolitan aggregation" is well deserving of study
and analysis. In 1940, 2,785,643 persons lived within
4
the county boundaries. By October of 1953, the popula-
5
tion had almost reached the 4,700,000 mark. This is
an increase of 6 8 .5 per cent in a thirteen-year period,
a growth record almost unmatched.
For purposes of analysis, this study makes use
of a system of census tracts and statistical and economic
6
areas that have been previously devised.
History of Southern California. For a complete statis-
tical review of the 1940 land use pattern of the south
ern portion of Los Angeles County, the reader is referred
to the Land Use Survey, a report published in 1940 by the
Los Angeles County Regional Planning Commission.
:4
Fifteenth United States Population Census,
1940.
-5
See Table XVI, in the Appendix.
6
In 1 9 3 0, to make convenient the tabulation of
population, the United States Bureau of the Census divid
ed Los Angeles County into 588 census tracts. Today,-
these tracts have been broken down further so that there
are almost twice the original number. In 1940, for the
convenience of reporting, a survey which they had made,
the County Regional Planning Commission collected the
588 census tracts into 33 larger divisions, or "statis
tical areas." Much of the Commission’s reports.
15
A. LOS ANGELES COUNTY TOTALS
Los Angeles County's 4,083 square miles are split
from north to south by the San Gabriel mountains. That
portion comprising the San Gabriel mountain range lying
within the Los Angeles County border and the Antelope
Valley lying north of the mountains, has an area of
2 ,8 5 0 square miles. Largely mountain and desert, it has
a few small towns. For the analysis of land use, it is
still not significant, since a large part of it is na
tional forest.
This study treats that portion of Los Angeles
County lying south of the San Gabriel mountains; it in
cludes the San Frenando Valley, the Sunland-TuJunga
Plateau, the San Gabriel Valley, and the Los Angeles
coastal plain. This southern portion of the county is
particularly on population studies, currently follow
the statistical area breakdown.
Local private research committees, newspapers,
the Chamber of Commerce, and banks, use a further group
ing of sixteen economic areas, which are a combination
of thirty of the thirty-three statistical areas. These
sixteen economic areas make up the southern portion of
Los Angeles County.
For convenience in reporting, this study makes
use of the latter statistical breakdown, recognizing
sixteen economic areas (see Section B, "The Sixteen
Economic Areas," which follows the present discussion).
16
1223.2 square miles in size. The map given in the Appen-
7
dix shows the southern region divided into thirty sta-
8
tistical and sixteen economic areas. Table IX lists
the economic areas which make up this southern portion
of the county and the various statistical areas which
9
are part of each economic area.
10
Tables X through XV present a summary of the
11
land uses in 1940, in contrast with those in 1 9 5 3.
These tables show the amount of land space devoted to
each of the many uses, as well as the amount not used.
An analysis of these tables will serve to establish
the land use pattern of the southern portion of Los
Angeles County as is existed in 1940 and the pattern
which had developed by 1 9 5 3.
Urban and non-urban pattern. In 1940, out of
the total land uses in the southern portion of Los Angeles
County, 65 per cent of land area use was non-urban. By
7
Cf., infra, p.
8
See the Appendix.
9
County of Los Angeles, Land Use Survey (Los
Angeles, California: Los Angeles County Regional Planning
Commission, June, 1940), p. 8.
10 , .
See the Appendix.
11
See bottom of Table XI for sources of statistics
for these two years.
17
1 9 5 3, the process of urbanization had about equalized
the urban and non-urban areas. For this thirteen-year
period, an average of twelve square miles, or 8,000
acres per year, have been changed from non-urban into
an urban pattern.
Urban-used land has almost doubled since 1940,
rising from 309-8 to 528 square miles. Urban-vacant
land has been halved, dropping from 124.7 to 62.4 square
miles. Now in 1953 urban-vacant is only 5 per cent of
all the land area. Soon the vertical process of expan
sion must become accelerated— 'i.e., more intensive as
opposed to extensive development will be indicated for
the future.
The major land uses. Tables X through XV contain
such important and basic statistics on amount of area
devoted to each land use that it would be well to review
the major land uses and the trends as indicated in the
tables.
a. Commercial. As in all other large metro
politan areas, the outstanding and central element in
the Los Angeles pattern of urban land occupancy is its
central commercial core. This central business district
with its closely associated areas devoted to civic
center, warehousing light manufacturing, transient
18
residential, and mass transportation functions, comprises
1,4 square miles.
Outside the downtown business district, and al
ready apparent in 1940, was the notable decentralization
of the business district. This is a significant feature
12
of the present land use pattern. The additional allo
cation of land for commercial purposes during the 1940
to 1953 period is another outstanding characteristic of
13
the land use pattern. In 1940, the total land area
devoted to this use was 11.3 square miles. By 1953,
this had increased to 26 square miles, a jump of 1 3 1 .6
per cent.
This large increase in land devoted to commercial
purposes came about largely as a result of the new mass
development of open land. Subdividers created shopping
centers on their new developments, bypassing and disre
garding the existing unused business sites nearby. The
development of the many vacant commercial lots in the
city area will necessarily wait upon an increase in the
population. So far, this latter increase is taking
place only in the suburbs.
12
Extensive treatment of the subject of decentrali
zation of commerce in Los Angeles can be found in Chapter
IV of this work.
13
Robbins, pp. cit., p. 50»
.19
b. Industrial-manufacturing. The principal
manufacturing district of Los Angeles extends for several
miles to the south and southeast from the downtown busi
ness district, in close proximity to the main lines and
freight terminals of the local and transcontinental
railways. Large tracts of land are available here for
future development. The harbor * district (San Pedro)
is another important and rapidly growing industrial
locality. Small industrial districts exist in almost
every municipal and geographic division of Los Angeles.,
In 1 9 4 0, the total land area devoted to this use
was 12.6 square miles. By 1953, this had increased to
2 9 .1 square miles, a rise of I3O .9 per cent. Much open
vacant land lying adjacent to new subdivisions was zoned
for industrial use so as to bring worker and job closer
together in terms of travel time to and from the place
of employment. In 1940, there were 5,727 industrial
plants. By 1953, this figure had risen to approximately
14
11,000 plants on separate sites.
It is significant to note that the San Fernando
Valley is the most troublesome area as concerns a proper
balance between residential and industrial development.
14
Figures supplied by the Los Angeles Chamber of
Commerce, Industrial Division, July, 1953.
20
The former has taken place at a high rate, but the latter
is lagging far behind.
c. Residential. It can be said that func
tionally Los Angeles is predominantly a single-family
residence type area, for nearly 23 per cent of the sub
divided land is devoted to such use. In 1940, the total
land area devoted to this use was 119*6 square miles.
By 1953, this had increased to 206.7 square miles, a
jump of 73 per cent, or, roughly, an area approximately
the size of Chicago.
For multiple residence areas, one looks to that
part of the city extending west from the central business
district to Westwood and reaching from the Hollywood
Hills to the Baldwin Hills. In 1940, only 7-4 square
miles had been dedicated to this use. By 1953, the land
area devoted to this use had jumped 72 per cent to a
total of 12.7 square miles.
The subuhbs should continue to show a continuous
gain in total land used for single-family residential
purposes— in other words, a continued horizontal develop
ment, The in-city area will show an increasing change
over in the residential land use pattern, from single
family to multiple residence— that is, a growing vertical
development in the use of land.
21
d. Agricultural. Los Angeles has long
ranked as the nation’s most important agricultural
county, measured in terms of dollar value of production.
Both the 1940 and the 1950 United States Census reports
ranked Los Angeles County first in the nation in total
-15
value of production. Citrus fruits, walnuts, vege
tables and dairy and poultry products were the leading
crops. The San Gabriel Valley, the San Fernando Valley,
and the Whittler-Norwalk area were the predominant farm
ing sections.
In 19 4 0, the total county area devoted to non-
urban uses was 65 per cent. At that time, the four
major uses in agriculture were small-farm homes, tree
crops, general agriculture, and dairies and stables.
These had a total area of 426.7 square miles, which was
about 35 per cent of the entire county land area.
But, by 1 9 5 3, major changes had taken place. Los
Angeles was no longer the leading United States agricuT-
16
tural county. The total land area devoted to the four
major agricultural uses had been halved to 214.2 square
Ï
15
United States Bureau of the Census, Fifteenth
Census Report, 1940; and Sixteenth Census Report, 1950:
"Agricultural Production in the United States."
16
Interview with the Los Angeles County Agri
cultural Commissioner, Mr. Harold J. Ryan; August 25,
1953.
22
miles, which was now only 17 per cent of the entire land
area. This was an overall drop of 50 per cent of the
land area devoted to farm uses, as compared to 1940.
This trend downward in the use in total land area
devoted to agricultural uses should definitely continue.
The worsening smog conditions are driving producers
from the county area. And the rewards offered producers
by developers for the land needed for metropolitan de
velopment adds to the change-over in land use.
e. Vacant lands. Vacant lots were inter
spersed throughout the south portion of Los Angeles
County. In many districts they were more numerous than
the developed properties. This situation had developed
because subdividing had proceeded far in advance of cur
rent needs for all types of urban land. In 1940, the
population count stood at 2,785,643 and it was recognized
that twice that number of people could be accommodated
merely by filling in the existing vacant subdivided
, ^ 17
lots.
In 1 9 4 0, the vacant urban land totaled 124.7
square miles and the vacant non-urban amounted to 111.4
square miles. There were also I2 9.O square miles of
17
Robbins, op. cit., p. 37.
23
vacant, non-urban, mountainous land. By 1953, the
vacant-urban land had been reduced to only 62.3 square
miles, a drop of 50 per cent.
An increase in vacant non-urban land from 1940
to 1953 is a very striking statistic in the tables. They^
show that this category of land use increased 44.7 per
cent over the thirteen-year period; rising from 111.4
square miles in 1940 to 161.0 square miles in 1953* No
full explanation is available. Some persons have thought
that the tabulations were wrong. Others have said that
the smog problem has become acute enough in the last few
years to have forced much agriculture out of the county.
The certain continued increase in the county
population means the continued development of vacant
land, both urban and rural. The latter will develop
at a more rapid pace as subdivisions continue strong.
f. Streets and highways. A most signifi
cant type of land use in the Los Angeles area is that
devoted to streets and highways. About one-third of
all the land in the urban section is devoted to streets,
while more than one-sixth of the entire area in the
southern portion of Los Angeles County is included in
streets and highways.
In 1 9 4 0, the land area devoted to urban streets
24
was 103 square miles, while non-urban streets totaled
2 7 .5 square miles. By 1953, urban streets had increased
76 per cent to a new high of I8I.I square miles. Non-
urban streets, following the downward trend, dipped 50
per cent to a low of I3 .8 square miles.
These major alterations in land use patterns,
from rural to urban, are caused by shifting and new de
mands created by an increasing population.
B. THE SIXTEEN ECONOMIC AREAS
A brief look at the changing land use pattern of
each of the sixteen economic areas will show that cer
tain sections of Los Angeles County are growing more
rapidly than others. Growth can be measured in many
ways. We are here concerned with the filling in of
vacant land with all types of improvements and with the
intensified use of land currently bearing some type of
established use.
Area number The San Fernando Valley. This
area includes the statistical districts of Burbank,
Chatsworth, Encino, San Fernando, and Tujunga and covers
2 3 0 .1 square miles, equal to 147,247 acres. It is ringed
almost entirely by mountains, having 27,128 acres in
mountainous land, thus ranking first in the county in
25
this land use.
Over the thirteen-year period, from 1940 to 1953,
its residentially zoned land increased about 235 per
cent, rising from 5,542 acres to 18,564 acres. Commer
cial and industrial acreage has doubled and tripled in
total amount. However, it is significant that there
has been a major lag in the development of the industrial
land use in this area. Sufficient land area was rezoned
to this use to match the growing residential development;
but, because of the high price asked by the owners,
industrial firms have located elsewhere, creating a real
18
problem for the local residents and land planners.
Area number _2. Glendale. This area includes
only the statistical area of Glendale and covers 51.4
square miles, or 32,880 acres. Its most outstanding
land use characteristic is the 4,184 acres devoted to
recreation (Griffith Park). More than one-fifth of the
area is mountainous.
Over the thirteen-year period, from 1940 to 1953,
its residentially zoned land increased about 50 per cent,
rising from 6,782 to 9,981 acres. There are not many
1^ Interview with Mr. Charles B. Bennett, Director
of Planning, Los Angeles City Planning Department, June
l6, 1 9 5 3. The lack of industrial establishments to pro
vide employment for residents of this large area is a
constant headache to local planners. Millions of dollars
must be spent to build freeways over the Hollywood Hills
to the coastal plain, where jobs are available.
26
large commercial establishments, such as department
stores, and the industrial development in this area is
at a minimum.
Area number _3- Pasadena. This area includes
only the statistical area of Pasadena, and covers 42.8
square miles, or 27,404 acres. This is the representa
tive suburban community of Los Angeles County. Pasadena
residents range from poor to very wealthy, and include
many different races. Over forty per cent of the total
land area is devoted to residential use. Today there
are 11,108 acres devoted to this one use.
Industrial development has been kept at a mini
mum, but commercial development has kept pace with the
increasing population. Agriculture has Just about been
forced out by higher uses for the land. .Almost 15 per
cent of the area is mountainous.
Area number Pomona-Poothill. This area in
cludes the statistical districts of Citrus, El Monte,
Monrovia, Pomona, and Puente Hills, covering 303*9
square miles, equal to 195,803 acres. This is the larg
est of the sixteen economic areas and is today the least
urbanized of all the areas. This area has the greatest
potential for future residential development.
Over the thirteen-year period from 1940 to 1953,
27
its residentially zoned land increased about 162 per cent;
rising from 4,830 to 12,612 acres. Here, too, commercial
and industrial development has not kept pace with the
19
rising population. Commercial development will soon
come as investors establish large shopping centers ; but
industrial growth will become a sore point when local
residents have to travel to other sections of the county
to earn a living. In this area there is the greatest
amount of vacant land.
Area number San Gabriel. This area includes
only the statistical district of San Gabriel, with a 30.9
square mile coverage, amounting to 19,801 acres. About
25 per cent of this area was in agriculture in 1940, but
the non-urban uses have largely been pushed out by more
intense use of the land.
There has been an increase of about 85 per cent
over 1940 of acreage devoted to residential uses, rising
from 4 ,9 6 8 to 9 ,0 9 1 acres. Here, too, commercial and
industrially zones land has not kept pace in its rate
of improvement with the residential land.
Areas numbers 6 and 7* Northeast and East. This
19
Los Angeles County Regional Planning Commission,
Population,and Dwelling Units (Los Angeles, California:
County Regional.Planning Commission, October, 1953)•
28
area includes the statistical districts of Northeast
and East, which, combined, cover a total of 41 square
miles, equal to 26,239 acres. There are no non-urban
uses here today.
There'has been very little change in land zoning
for residential purposes since 1940, with only a 12 per
cent increase evident. Today, there are 8,6l8 acres
devoted to this use. This area leads in total land
zoned for commercial purposes as against all other areas
in the county. It is second highest in amount of land
zoned for industrial purposes. In this area, much vacant
land has gone into industrial growth.
Area number Central. This area includes
only the Central statistical district, commonly known
as the central business district. It is the smallest
in size, covering only 6.9 square miles, or 4.4Q5 acres.
This area has long ago been completely urbanized.
Industry is a minor use here. Commerce is the
major use and is continuously increasing in both the
amount of land and the intensified character of the im
provements on the land. There has been a steady decline
in residences and in land zoned for residential purposes
since 1940. Today, not over 1,200 acres is zoned for
this purpose.
291
Area number Wllshire. This area includes
only the Wilshire statistical area and covers 12.2 square
miles, or 7,829 acres. Here, too, non-urban uses had
ceased to exist by 1940. ' It was the second smallest of
the sixteen economic areas.
Since 1940, there has been very little change in
the amount of land devoted to residential uses. Today
there are 4,759 acres so dedicated, probably 20 per cent
of which are devoted to multiple residence use. Indus
trially zoned land is less than one-half of one per cent
and purposefully so. This has been done to maintain
its desirable commercial and apartment-dwelling features.
Area number 10. Hollywood. This area includes
only the Hollywood statistical district and covers 22
square miles, or 14,089 acres. Here, also, non-urban
uses had disappeared by 1940. Almost 23 per cent of
this area is mountainous.
In this area, growth in land use is taking place
in the land zoned for multiresidentlal and commercial
uses. The industrial land is kept at a minimum by land
planners to maintain the area’s high population and
business density qualities.
Area number 11. Beverly Hills. This area in
cludes only the Beverly Hills statistical district and
30
covers an area of 19 square miles, equal to 12,176 acres.
Here, too, non-urban uses have long ago disappeared.
However, this area is almost 30 per cent mountainous.
Here, commerce and industry has been kept to a
very low minimum by land planners, so as to maintain
the area's high residential qualities. In this area
the wealthy live. Therefore, the area has experienced
and will continue to experience the least amount of land
use change.
Area number 12. Santa Monica Bay. This economic
area includes the three statistical districts of San
Vicente, Santa Monica-Venice, and South Beach Cities.
It covers 98*3 square miles, equal to 62,903 acres.
This is the beach and play area of the county, with over
a thousand acres devoted to recreation.
Over the thirteen-year period, from 1940 to 1953,
its residentially zoned land increased about 125 per cent,
rising from 4,673 to 10,482 acres. Land zoned for com
mercial and industrial uses is sizeable in amount, but
improvements on these uses, particularly industrial, has
lagged behind the population growth.
There are still some non-urban uses present in
this rapidly urbanizing area. Almost 1400 acres are
devoted to oil wells. Over 36 per cent of the area, or
31
2 2 ,7 5 8 acres. Is mountainous.
Area number 13. Inglewood-Adams. This section
includes the statistical areas of Inglewood and Adams,
covering 78.4 square miles, equal to 5 0 ,1 5 0 acres. Tak
ing size into consideration, this area is the most urban
ized for it leads in amount of land devoted to the various
urban uses.
From 1940 to 1953, there was almost a 60 per cent
increase in the amount of land devoted to residential
uses, with an increase from 11,695 to 18,434 acres. In
this area, over 8OO acres are devoted to oil wells. This
is an important recreation area with almost 2 ,0 0 0 acres
so dedicated.
Area number 14. Compton-Southeast. This section
includes the statistical areas of Compton and Southeast,
with a combined area of 77.5 square miles, or 49,566
acres. It is the most important industrial section of
Los Angeles, with almost 3,000 acres so used; over 1,000
acres are for commercial'use.
In this area, almost 1,400 acres are devoted to
oil wells. There is some general agriculture in the few
remaining large fields, but most of this land is zoned
either residential or industrial. It is significant to
note that, although this area has almost the highest
32
amount of acreage devoted to residential purposes, it
has the lowest amount of land devoted to recreational
use.
Area number 15» Whittier-Norwalk. This section
includes the statistical areas of Whittier and Norwalk,
covering 108 square miles, or 6 9 ,1 8 7 acres. In this
area, the greatest percentage increase in land devoted
to residential purposes has taken place since 1940.
There has been a 310 per cent rise, increasing from
1 ,6 5 4 to 6 ,7 9 0 acres devoted to this use. Furthermore,
the future plans for this area call for more of the
same sort of development. There are very few multiple
residence sites and improvements in this area.
There are over 2,800 acres here devoted to oil
well use. Less than one-half of one percent (but 375
acres) is devoted to recreational uses. Industrial and
commercial development is also lagging behind the popu
lation growth. Agriculture is still an important land
use in this area. Here are the last remaining evidences
of stock and dairies that were once an important land
use in the county.
Area number 16. South Coast. This section in
cludes the statistical areas of Long Beach, Dominguez,
33
and Palos Verdes. It covers 152.3 square miles, equal
to 9 7 ,5 0 2 acres. This area is most important as an oil
producing district, for within its boundaries lies Signal
Hill. More than 8,000 acres of land are devoted to oil
well use. Moreover, now that oil wells are being drilled
off-shore, it is interesting to note that the dimensions
of this area may be increasing with the additional off
shore land devoted to oil well use.
This is the second most important industrial
section of the county, with about 1,590 acres so dedi
cated. Within this district lies the growing Los Angeles
harbor. It is an important recreational area for ocean
sports, and upwards of . 1 ,5 0 0 acres are zoned for this
use. Agriculture is still an important land use in
this area.
The thirteen-year period from 1940 to 1953 has
seen a 100 per cent increase in land devoted to resi
dential uses, with a rise from 5,341 to 1 0 ,6 0 0 acres
in this land use.
C. DIFFERENCES IN AREA DEVELOPMENT
The most important and outstanding difference in
area development is the one between the central city area
and the suburbs. It is one of almost total stagnation
34
of the central city.,, and of phenomenal growth of the
many communities bordering and surrounding the inner
city. Chapter IV is devoted to an extensive review
of this condition.
The difference in area development in Los Angeles
County is a result of many factors. Most important is
the availability of cheap, level land which attracted
the subdividers. Without question, the developers de
cided where the population would live; not the population
where they wished the developers to create new subdivi
sions. Accessibility to employment for new residents
has not been a primary developmental factor.
The high concentration of a given land use for a
particular area has been caused by land planners. They
have in almost all cases allowed for a balance within
an area by providing sufficient land zoned for other uses
so as to serve the needs of the planned resident popula
tion. The inbalance has been caused by the developers.
They have converted industrial land into residential
developments. This can be seen in the case of the San
Fernando Valley, where the original healthy land use
pattern has been upset.
The availability of cheap, level and vacant land
in the Whittier-Norwalk, Long Beach, and San Fernando
Valley areas resulted in the tremendous development of
35
these sections with residential subdivisions. In the
first two, industrial development followed naturally
because land for that use remained relatively inexpen
sive. But in the latter area, as has been pointed out,
normal industrial development did not take place; in
stead, speculators bought up all the land zoned for in
dustrial uses, and kept land prices high.
The San Gabriel Valley area is only now beginning
to develop with new residential subdivisions. In this
area, most of the flat land is devoted to the growing
of citrus crops and is, therefore, relatively expensive.
The in-city areas are stagnant. They include
Beverly Hills, Hollywood, Wilshire, Glendale, East and
Northeast Los Angeles City, and, of course, the Central
area known as the central business district.
The South and Southwest city areas have shown
steady growth in their residential, commercial, and in
dustrial land use development.
III. SUMMARY
The steady use of the land in Los Angeles County
for highly productive agriculture followed by the more
intense uses of residential, commercial and industrial
patterns with their contiguous callings, grew into the
crazy quilt pattern of land use that was Los Angeles
36
County in 1940.
Favorable geographic and climatic factors were
and still are primary influences in the growth and pat
tern of the land use in this area. The suburban com
munities of Los Angeles County are now filling in with
improvements on the land, and at such a phenomenal rate
that the old established land use patterns are changing.
It is a change towards a more urbanized community.
Although no forecast of the land use pattern
after 1953 is offered, nevertheless, the careful laying
down of the pattern for 1940 and the major changes to
1953 establish a basic trend for the future. There is
yet open land in many of the economic districts for
extensive development. At the same time, there is
.sufficient evidence on which to conclude that the era
of more intensive development of the central portions
of Los Angeles County is at hand. This means the con
struction of tall buildings in in-city areas, and the
heightened forms of land use in all categories and in
all sections.
The chapter which follows is devoted to a
thorough study of the population of Los Angeles County,
to clarify the extend and character of the population
demand for the growing and shifting land uses.
CHAPTER III
POPULATION
The effecjb of an ever-increasing population, with
rising per capita incomes on land use and land values
in Los Angeles County has caused an economic condition
wherein "land prices leaped and shot skyward." The re
sult was intensification of land use, tooth horizontally
and vertically. Moreover, this development is in con
tinuous process of reintensification.
The story of Los Angeles can be called a story
of water and population. Water was a technical problem
and the local civic leaders saw to its availability.
Thus, the flood of water could be joined by a flood
of population and, in time, it was.
This chapter deals with the "flood of people"
to this area. It includes a statistical tabulation of
the 1940 to 1953 population figures and an analysis of
these figures, covering Los Angeles County and the
Robinson thus refers to the period from 1875 to
1 8 8 5, when prosperity and railroad rate wars combined to
increase the local population by approximately 400 per
cent (W. W. Robinson, Panorama, ^ Picture History of
Southern California. Los Angeles: Anderson and RTfchie,
1953).
38
sixteen economic areas. It discusses the main population
changes so as to indicate the broad picture of growth,
the decline of certain older sections, and the peculiar
value change situation of Los Angeles City. The growth
from 1950 to 1953 is an "accelerated" development in
certain areas, in some respects already outstripping
the vast growth of the entire previous ten-year period.
1, HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
Los Angeles County was settled in I769 when two
padres and ten soldiers arrived from Lower California
to found the now-famous San Gabriel Mission. The City
of Los Angeles was founded September 4, 178I, when eleven
families, totaling forty-four persons, left the Mission
San Gabriel and arrived at the site of the Plaza of the
2
Pueblo de Los Angeles.
The first official United States Government census
counted 1,610 people in Los Angeles city. For the entire
county, the total was a mere 3,530. Thus began the
first official measure of a "creek" that was to grow to
a stream, overflowing its banks at times; then to grow
to the size of a mighty river and expand to such propor-
2 I
Interview with Mr. A. Temple, official historian,‘
Mission de San Gabriel, June 9, 1953. !
39
tlons as to inundate the entire land with ambitious,
resourceful and energetic mankind..
11. THE OVERALL GROWTH
Los Angeles County is one of the fastest growing
areas in the United States. Between I85O and 1940, its
population had multiplied almost 80Û times. By 1950,
this population had risen to almost 1200 times the I85O
figure. As of 1953, the growth stands at more than I300
times the original population count. In contrast, the
population of the State of California has increased
114 times in the one hundred year period ending in 1 9 5 0.
Table XVI, in the Appendix, presents the population
statistics for Los Angeles City and County from I769
to 1 9 5 3.
At least two significant facts about the popula
tion growth can be discussed from an examination of this
table. First, there is the pronounced and persistent
trend toward the "suburbanization" of the local popula
tion. Since 1910, Los Angeles City's share of the total
Los Angeles County population has been diminishing.
About 1946, the city's share fell below the 50 per cent
mark. Today, in 1953, its share is only 44.5 per cent.
While suburbanization is characteristic of many other
40.
cities, nowhere else in the entire United States is
there a central city section in any large metropolitan
area with a lower population count than its surrounding
3
suburbs. This is, without doubt, an area of decentrali
zation par excellence.
The cheap land of the suburbs, as against the ex
pensive central city land, is a major reason why builders,
from one house to an entire tract of homes, have gone to
the suburbs. The mass use of the automobile has enabled
this trend to continue unabated, freeing the suburb
dwellers from dependence upon the inefficient mass trans
portation system.
The second significant fact is the phenomenal
addition to the population. For example, in the ten-
year period from 1940 to 1950:
. • . More persons were added to the Los Angeles
County population than did the entire State of
Texas or the entire State of New York— more in
fact than any state except California itself.^
3
Interview with A. Hasegawa, population statis
tician, Los Angeles County Regional Planning Department,
Los Angeles, April I5, 1953] and interview with Mr.
Conrad Jamieson, Vice-President in Charge of Research,
Security-First National Bank of Los Angeles, Los Angeles,
August 6, 1 9 5 3.
4
Security-First National Bank of Los Angeles,
Monthly Summary of Business Conditions, May, 1953, Los
Angeles', California.
4 l
The next three years continued the mass rise;
In the brief span of three years, 1950 to
1 9 5 3, Los Angeles County has added more per
sons to its population than the total 1 9 5 0
population of Seattle, Washington; or Kansas
City, Missouri; and nearly as many as the c
1 9 5 0 population of Cincinnati or Minneapolis.
What does so great a rise mean?
This rate of population increase— an
average of 100,000 per year--has been going
on for four decades and means that this County
has had to build— each year— on the average
for the nearly four decades--enough homes,
streets, utilities, churches and other facil
ities for a city having the 1 9 5 0 population
of Glendale or Pasadena.0
This is what is meant by a "flood of population."
The ‘ effect of such a mass migration upon the land
use pattern of the area has been discussed in Chapter 11.
It results in the intensified use of land. It also
creates a condition of long-run inflation of land value.
111. -A SUMMARY OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY POPULATION
STATISTICS
There are several public and quasi-public agencies
7
that share in the gathering of population statistics.
5
Loc. cit.
^ Loc. cit.
7
The most important is the United States Depart
ment of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Others include
the Planning Commissions of the City and County, the
Chambers of Commerce, and the Los Angeles Times.
42
Their cumulative effort results in a composite picture
of the population. This composition of the population
means many things. First is the mere numbers, listed by
county and city, or by statistical and economic area,
or by census tract. By this one can watch certain sec
tions or census tracts slipping in population even in
a period of great rise, as from 1940 to 1953--for ex
ample, the residential section just west of the downtown
business district.
The breakdown of males and females is significant
for employment and payrolls and family formation; the
latter data are very valuable to builders of dwelling
units. Age groups are also significant; they are joined
with employment figures. Density of the population and
density of the dwelling units are all important and
greatly affect land use and land values.
A. LOS ANGELES COUNTY TOTALS
In April of 1953, 4,634,622 persons were estimated
8
to be living in Los Angeles County. This is a rise of
11.2 per cent in the three years since the general popula
tion census of April, 1950, which showed %,151,687
8
Los Angeles County Regional Planning Commission,
Population and Dwelling Units (Los Angeles, California :
County Regional Planning Commission, April, 1953).
43
persons living in the county. This was a growth of 6?
per cent over the 1940 general population census figure
of 2,7 8 5 ,6 4 3 persons. From 1940 to 1950 the rise was
49 per cent. From these given facts, it can be authori
tatively demonstrated that Los Angeles County is continu
ing a fast pace of population growth. The net result
has been an intensification in land use, both horizon
tally and vertically and a continuous upward trend in
the dollar value of the land.
B. LOS ANGELES CITY TOTALS
City growth continues to lag behind county growth
and is already less than half the non-city population,
a startling position among major cities and one which
is crucial for land value determination. From 1,504,277
persons residing in the city in 1940, the total rose
to 1,9 7 0 ,3 5 8 in 1 9 5 0. This 31 per cent increase is far
less than that of the county (49 per cent). More im
portant is the fact that in 1940 the city had 54 per
cent of the county's population; and that by 1950 had
only 4 7 .5 per cent of the county population living
within the city limits. By 1953, this figure had fallen
to 44.5 per cent. Furthermore, by 1953 the city had a
population of 2,063,468, a 4.7 per cent rise over 1 9 5 0,
compared to the county's rise of 11.2 per cent for the
44
same period. The section of the city contributing
heavily to the relative importance of the county is the
San Fernando population. If the Valley growth were dis
counted, the rest of the city would have gained only
2 6 ,0 0 0 in three years, or less than 9,000 a year.
The result is that the city is losing its high
position of importance as compared to the remainder of
the county. Today, non-city areas contain 2,571,154
persons, or 55*5 per cent of the total county popula
tion. Where the city increased 4.7 per cent in the
three-year period from 1 9 5 0 to 1 9 5 3, non-city areas
rose 1 8 per cent. Table XVI1 in the Appendix presents
detailed statistics on population growth in Los Angeles
County from 1940 to 1953»
This condition of suburban growth and central
city decline has obvious disadvantages. It means a
large loss of potential tax revenue to the important
central city government. It means, also, a tremendous
waste of street and utility improvements within the
central city area and between the central city and the
outlying suburbs, since much land lies undeveloped.
It means the creation of slum conditions for the central
city population, since there is little or no incentive
for that area to rebuild itself. The process of inten
sified land use there has not taken place to any
45
appreciable extent; only vacant land tends to be de
veloped.
These, then, are some of the more objectionable
effects of the rapid growth of suburbs in Los Angeles
County at the expense of larger concurrent growth of
Los Angeles City.
C. MALES AND FEMALES IN THE POPULATION
There were 1,420,812 females in Los Angeles
County in 1940. This was 51 per cent of the total county
population and represented an excess of 55,981 women over
men. Ten .years later the gap had widened. In the 1950
census tabulations, the females represented almost 52
per cent of the population, with a count of 2,147,873*
They then had an excess of 144,059 over the males. In
other words, the pioneer hardship days would seem to be
over; the women are flocking, into this tried and proven
area. The forced draft of males into the army since
June of 1950 has increased the ratio still farther.
This condition of excess of single females plays
in favor of the development of the close-in central city
area; particularly, that section where the number of
persons per dwelling unit is traditionally low. For
builders, this means the building of small apartments
46
at reasonably low rentals.
D. AGE GROUPING OP THE POPULATION
Age grouping statistics indicate that Los Angeles
County is faring well in terms of the age distribution
of its population. Table 1 shows a comparison of Los
Angeles County with the United States on age grouping.
Although the 43*8 per cent of the population
which represents the youthful segment of the Los Angeles
County population (those 29 years of age and under) is
6 per cent below the figure shown for the United States,
it still represents a high enough grouping in total
number so as to ensure to this area a continuing popula
tion.
The middle-aged segment is sufficiently large to
insure to this area a high number of biologically repro
ductive and economically productive elements of society.
Compared to the United States, this area is 3*6 per cent
higher. The age group of fifty-and-over, with only a
2.4 per cent excess over the United States percentage
figure, gives no cause for alarmists to declare that this
is becoming an area of pensioners and oldsters.
The statistics do show up the need to create
housing to serve a large group of one and two-person
47
COMPARATIVE
AND
TABLE 1
AGE GROUPING OF THE
LOS. ANGELES COUNTY.,
UNITED STATES
1 9 5 0. .
Age United Los Angeles
group States - County
0 to 29 4 9.8$^ 4 3.8^
30 to 49 2 7 .8 3 1 .4
50 and up 22.4 24.8
Women
(15 to 49) 1 9 . 6
2 6 . 9
Source: Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census,
Sixteenth Census of the United States, 1950,
United States, ah(TlLos Angeles County.
48
families in the age bracket of "30 and over." This means
the construction of small, low-rental apartments in the
central city area.
This area is very fortunate to have so many bio
logically reproductive women. The Los Angeles County
percentage figure is 7*3 per cent over the United States
figure. Further proof of this advantage is that the
"natural increase" in the population has accounted for
approximately 33 per cent of the population growth since
the end of World War 11. Before the war, from 1925 to
1939, births accounted for only 8 per cent of the yearly
, 9
growth.
In 1 9 4 0, the age grouping statistics showed the
effects of years of mass in-migration and years of a
transient population. The results were a low percentage
of children in the population, with the age group "under
10" totaling only 12 per cent. However, by 1950, after
ten years of permanent type newcomers, the figure rose
to 1 7.3 per cent. Table 11 shows the distribution of
the population by age group and the changes that have
taken place in the years 1940 to 1 9 5 0.
Table 11 is also interesting in indicating that
9
Security-First National Bank of Los Angeles,
Monthly Summary of Business Statistics, Los Angeles,
May, 1953:
49
TABLE II
COMPARATIVE AGE GROUPING OP THE POPULATION
OP LOS.ANGEIES COUNTY POR 1940 AND 1950
Age
group
1940
1950
Percentage
change
Under 5 6.1
9 .7
3 .6
5 to 9
5 .9
7 .6
1 .7
10 to 14
6 .5 5 .7
0.8
15 to 19
7 .4
5 .3
2.1
20 to 29
1 7 .3
1 5 .6
1 .7
30 to 49 3 2 .2 3 1 .2 1.0
50 and over 24.6
2 4 .9 0 .3
Total 100.0 100.0 0.0
Source: Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census,
Fifteenth Census of the United States, 1940,
Population Census for Los Angeles County;
Sixteenth Census of the United States, 1950,
Population Census~Tor Los Angeles County.
50
it is not true that it is mostly older people who flock
to Los Angeles County.
E. EMPLOYMENT STATISTICS
The figures on employment of the population indi
cate that women are getting more of the new jobs that
are becoming available. Table 111 bears this out.
Between the years 1940 and 1950, there was a 1.7
per cent increase in the percentage of the total county
population which was employed. This entire percentage
increase was restricted to the female group. By so in
creasing their numbers in the working force, they took
3.2 percentage points away from the male group, in terms
of the percentage of the total number employed, on a
comparative basis. For builders, this means the advisa
bility of construction of small, low-rent apartments in
the central city area to serve these employed females.
In 1 9 4 0, there were five occupational groups to
which 7 7 .5 per cent of employed persons belonged. In
order of highest number of persons in the group, they
were; clerical-sales, operatives, craftsmen, managers-
officials-proprietors, and service. By 1950, the total
number of employed had increased by 56 per cent, but the
original pattern of employment grouping by occupations
remained relatively unchanged. Only the fifth group.
51
TABLE III
COMPARATIVE FIGURES OF EMPLOYED MALES AND
FEMALES IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY,
1940 AND 1950
Group 1940
1950
Total number employed
1,0 3 3 ,7 2 5 1,6 1 7 ,1 3 1
per cent of total county
population
3 7 .1
3 8 .8
Total number of males employed
7 4 0 ,9 3 1
1,107,044
Male percentage of total em
ployed population 7 1 .6 68.4
Male percentage of total
population 2 6 .6 2 6 .6
Total number of females employed 2 9 2 ,7 9 4 5 1 0 ,0 8 7
Female percentage of total em
ployed population 2 8 .4 3 1 .6
Female percentage of total
population 1 0 .5 12.2
Source; See Table 11, p. 49*
52
that of service, had been displaced by the professional
and technical group. The first five groups, in 1950,
contained 8 2 .8 per cent of the total number of employed
persons. Addition of the service group to the other
five groups for 1950 would then account for 1 9 *5 per
cent of the working force in the population.
The growing importance of the professional and
technical group in the population has real significance
for the central city area. It calls for the rebuilding
of the city as older homes tend to give way to large
apartment structures serving the medium and high rental
paying tenants.
In 1 9 5 0, the five most important major industry
groups of the twenty groups classified accounted for
over 63 per cent of the total employment. They are, in
order of total number employed: manufacturing, retail
trade, construction, personal service, and finance-
insurance-real estate.
E. DENSITY OP THE POPULATION
The metropolitan character of this area depends
upon a highly populated region. Yet the historical
character of this spread-out region has resulted in a
low population density figure. That signifies many
53
single-family dwellings, slow "apartmentalization," and
few mass concentrations of population to support a sub
way system at a profit. And, the historical character
of this spread-out region is Just one more portrait of
the struggle between the central city area and its sur
rounding suburban satellite cities. In Table IV the
trend in density figures can be seen.
The figures in Table IV show that most people
who come here still want a garden-type community and
are going out into the suburbs to get just that. But,
multi-family units are inevitably pushing upward, too.
Available land in the central city area is becoming
scarce, while the demand for the use of central city
land for apartments is growing. Table XVlll, in the
Appendix, contains the detailed statistics on population
density. The figures for the different economic areas
point out the struggle between the central city area
and the suburbs. Areas numbered one through five, and
eleven through sixteen, are suburban. Their population
densities have increased very substantially in the thir
teen-year period since 1940. These eleven outlying
areas of Los Angeles County have experienced an average
increase of 106 per cent in the density of the population
living within their boundaries. On the other hand, the
four areas comprising the central city section of Los
54
TABLE IV
COMPARATIVE SUMMARY STATISTICS ON PERSONS PER SQUARE
MILE IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY.FOR 1940, , 1950, , AND 1953*
Percentage
increase
Area 1940 1950 1953 1950
over
1940
19531
over S
1950 1
Los Angeles
County 684 1 ,0 2 1
1 ,1 3 7 4 9 .4 11.2 1
Los Angeles
. City
3 ,4 9 9
4 ,3 5 0 4 ,5 6 0
24.3 4 .9
Remainder of
County 354
602 708 7 0 .0
1 7 .7
* See Table XVI1, in the Appendix.
55
Angeles County have experienced an average increase of
only 4 per cent in' the density of the population living
within their boundaries. The central business district
has had an actual loss of 10 per cent in its population
density.
G. DWELLING UNITS AND POPULATION
In the number of persons per dwelling unit for
the period from 1940 to 1 9 5 3, the non-city areas have
shown the highest occupancy rate.
Data on the number of persons per dwelling unit
that is common for a given area is significant for the
many elements that go into land valuation through land
improvement. It affects size of individual dwellings,
facilities provided for occupants, where people live,
how large rooms shall be, etc. The demand for two
bathroom homes is a case in point, this demand being a
recommended requirement for high-rent dwellings with
two or more bedrooms which serve family units of three
persons and over. This is founded on the data presented
in Table V.
Table VI shows that there has been a substantial
increase in the number of dwelling units in Los Angeles
County since 1940. The overall increase for the thirteen-
56
TABLE V
COMPARATIVE SUMMARY STATISTICS ON PERSONS PER
DWELLING UNIT IN.LOS ANGELES COUNTY
FOR 1 9 4 0,.1 9 5 0, and 1953*
Area 1940
1950 1953
Los Angeles
County 2 .9 0 2.88
2 .7 9
Los Angeles
City 2.84 2 .8 2 2 .7 0
Remainder of Los
Angeles County 2 .9 8 2 .9 4 2 .8 7
* See Table XIX, in the Appendix.
57
TABLE VI
COMPARATIVE SUMMARY STATISTICS ON DWELLING UNITS
IN LOS.ANGELES COUNTY,,FOR.1.9^0, 1950,.AND 1952*
Year
Los Angeles
. County
Los Angeles Rest of ^
City county
1940--number of dwelling
units 9 6 1 ,5 4 1 5 2 9 ,2 6 1 4 3 2 ,2 8 0
1940--percentage 100.0 5 5 .0 4 5 .0 ;
19 50--number of dwelling
units 1,442,691 6 9 8 ,0 3 9
7 4 4 ,6 5 2 i
1950--percentage 100.0 48.4 5 1 .6
I94O-I95O--increase in
number of units 4 8 1 ,1 5 0 1 6 8 ,7 2 8 3 1 2 ,3 7 2 1
1940-1950--percentage
of increase 5 0 .0 3 2 .0
7 1 .8 1
1953-^number of dwelling
units 1,6 6 1 ,1 0 2 764,964 8 9 6 ,1 3 8 ^
1953— percentage 100.0 46.0 5 4 .0
1950-i9 53--increase in
number of units 218,411
6 6 ,9 2 5
1 5 1 ,4 8 6
I95O-I953— percentage
of increase 1 5 .1 9 .6 2 0 .3
* See Table XX, in the Appendix.
58
year period is 73 per cent. It also shows that the
building of new structures is going on largely in the
suburbs.of the county. This further substantiates the
desire on the part of the local population for spacious
single-family home dwellings.
The data in Table VI indicate that there has been
an increase in the rate of construction of new dwelling
units since 1 9 5 0, as compared to the ten-year period
from 1940 to 1 9 5 0. A 33-3 per cent higher pace has been
maintained in these later three years. However, it
would take a much more detailed study than the present,
with many more given facts, to discuss the possibility
of an end to the boom in building.
IV. POPULATION STATISTICS OP THE SIXTEEN ECONOMIC
AREAS
Los Angeles County is so large, geographically,
that to break down that large mass of land into the six
teen economic areas is to permit of more realistic
analysis of population trends for the given land mass.
The 1940 to 1953 population totals are given, but no at
tempt is made to predict the future course for each of
the areas*
Area number 1. The San Fernando Valley. In 1940,
59
this area had 155,443 persons. By 1953, this number had
jumped to 492,126, a 216.2 per cent increase for the
thirteen year period. Its population density, likewise,
increased from 6jO to 2,120 persons per acre.
The dwelling unit count increased from 49,971 in
1940 to 1 6 7 ,3 8 4 in 1 9 5 3, a 235*8 per cent increase. The
greater percentage increase of dwelling unit as against
population for this thirteen-year period resulted in a
drop in the number of persons per dwelling unit from
3 .1 2 in 1940 to 2 .9 4 in 1 9 5 3*
Overall, the valley is a single-family home area.
The males outnumber the females. The greatest number of
the employed persons in this area work as laborers,
operatives, craftsmen, clerical and sales personnel, or
work in the service field. Here, the people are younger,
on the average, than is the case for the county as a
whole.
Area number 2. Glendale. In 1940,. this area
had 1 6 1 ,6 0 7 persons. By 1953, this number had jumped
to 2 1 5,7 8 9, a 33*4 per cent increase. Its population
density increased from 3 ,1 7 0 to 4,230 persons per acre.
The dwelling unit count jumped 47.2 per cent,
rising from 54,407 in 1940 to 8 0 ,0 7 0 in 1953* The num
ber of persons per dwelling unit decreased from 2 .9 7 to
60
2.69 over the thirteen-year period.
The character of the population of Glendale indi
cates that it is a more settled and stable area. The
females outnumber the males, and the employed men are
in the professional, managerial, and skilled craftsmen
classifications. Here, the families, on the average,
contain a larger percentage of three-and-four-person
households than does the county as a whole.
This area is decidedly a single-family home area.
The homes are higher in value and in rental than is
average for the county as a whole.
Area number _3* Pasadena. In 1940, this area
had 1 1 7 ,6 1 7 persons. By 1953, this number had jumped
to 1 7 5,4 4 9, an increase of 49.2 per cent. Its popula
tion density increased from 2 ,8 0 0 to 4,I80 persons per
acre.
The dwelling unit count jumped 53.8 per cent,
increasing from 40,836 in 1940 to 62,688 in 1953. The
number of persons per dwelling unit decreased from 2.88
to 2 .8 0 over the time period.
A greater number of older persons live in this
section than throughout the county as a whole. Here,
too, the females outnumber the males. The homes here
are expensive; and this, too, is a single-family home
area.
61
Area number 4^, Pomona-Foothill. In 1940, this
area had 131,423 inhabitants. By 1953, this figure had
increased to 325,363, a rise of 187*2 per cent for the
period. The population density of the area also in
creased from 501 to 1,228 persons per acre.
The dwelling unit count increased from 41,757
in 1940 to 1 0 9 ,0 3 8 in 1 9 5 3, a I6I .8 per cent addition.
The number of persons per dwelling unit decreased from
3.14 in 1940 to 2 .9 8 in 1953.
In this area, the numbers of males and females
are about evenly matched. Of the employed males, the
laborer group is most heavily represented. Large fam
ilies are more common in this section. The age group
ings are weighted in favor of the very young and the
aged.
The homes in this area are of the cheaper type.
From the rental stanpoint, this section has the lowest
rent cost status of the entire county. This is another
single-family home area.
Area number San Gabriel. In 1940, this area
had 100,448 persons. By 1953, this number had Jumped
to 1 7 2,6 0 0, an increase of 71.9 per cent. Its population
density increased from 3,240 to 5,575 persons per acre.
The dwelling unit count jumped 83 per cent.
62
rising from 32,764 in 1940 to 59,953 in 1953* The num
ber of persons per dwelling unit decreased from 3» 06 to
2.88 persons.
This is also a single-family home area. Here,
many young children are being reared, for the figures
on the "under 20" age group showed a higher percentage
than for the county as a whole. In this area the three,
four, and five-person family size is popular. The homes
in this area tend to be a little more expensive than
the average for the county.
Areas numbers ^ and 7^. Northeast and East. In
1 9 4 0, this area had 364,807 persons. By 1953, this num
ber had risen to 397,693, a 9 per cent increase. How
ever, there were 401,307 persons living in this section
in 1 9 5 0. Therefore, in the three years from 1950 to
1 9 5 3, there has been a 0 .9 per cent loss equal to 3*614
persons, who have moved out and have not been replaced
by others. Its population density followed the same
pattern, increasing from 8 ,3 6 0 in 1940 to 9,815 in 1 9 5 0,
and then falling to 9 ,6 9 8 persons per acre in 1 9 5 3*
The dwelling unit count has maintained itself,
increasing from 113,146 in 1940 to 124,456 in 1 9 5 0, and
to 1 2 5 ,6 7 8 in 1 9 5 3. This is an overall increase of 12
per cent for the thirteen-year period. The number of
persons per dwelling unit decreased only slightly over
63
this period of time, dipping from 3,22 to 3.14 persons
per household.
In this area, the males exceeded the females.
The former were largely employed in the service and
laborer classifications. Families tended to be larger.
This is definitely an apartment house area, with over
40 per cent of the structures so classified. Rents here
are low.
Area number Central. In 1940, this area
had 1 3 3 ,3 5 1 persons. Since then, it has been experiencing
a net decrease in the number of inhabitants. By 1953,
the figure had fallen to 1 1 9,5 9 3, a 10.3 per cent de
crease. Its population density fell from 1 9 ,0 5 0 in
1940 to 1 7 ,0 8 5 persons per acre in 1953. This still
remained as the section having the highest population
density of any of the sixteen economic areas.
The dwelling unit count also decreased, falling
from 5 8 ,3 7 4 units in 1940 to 56,359 units in 1953, a drop
of 3 .3 per cent for the thirteen years. The number of
persons per dwelling unit decreased from 2 .2 9 to 2.12,
which is the lowest of any of the sixteen economic sec
tions .
In this area, the males exceed the females in
total number. The former are largely employed in service
64
and in clerical-sales classifications. The striking
feature about age grouping here is the almost complete
dominance of older persons, with concurrent absence of
small children. Family size shows a heavy predominance
of one and two-person units.
The homes in this area are older and of lower
value. Rents per unit are low. This section is definite
ly an apartment house area.
Area number Wilshire. In 1940, this area
had 1 5 1 ,0 8 6 persons. By 1953, this number had increased
to 1 6 2,6 7 1, a rise of only 7*5 per cent. In fact, there
has been an actual net loss of l62 persons for this area
for the three-year period from 1950 to 1 9 5 3. Its popula
tion density increased from 1 2 ,5 9 0 to 1 3 ,5 5 6 persons per
acre.
The dwelling unit count increased 23.2 per cent,
rising from 58,153 in 1940 to 7 1 ,6 7 2 in 1953. The number
of persons per dwelling unit decreased from 2.60 to 2 .2 7
per unit over the given time period.
In this area there are a far greater number of
females than males. Here, the white-collar workers live.
The "40 to 6 0" age group for both men and women is strong
ly represented in this area. The one and .two-person
family group is popular in this section.
65
This is definitely: a multidwelling structure area.
Rents are high and homes are expensive.
Area number 10. Hollywood. In 1940, this area
had 1 6 2 ,3 4 0 persons. By 1950, this figure had increased
only 1 .9 per cent, reaching 165,501. However, by 1953,
the downward trend was clearly evident, for the popula
tion figure had dipped to 1 5 8,9 8 6, a 3*9 per cent decrease
in three years. The population density of the area in
creased from 7 ,3 9 0 to 7,535 and then dropped to 7 ,2 3 5
persons per acre in 1 9 5 3.
The dwelling unit count, however, showed a slow
but steady increase, rising from 64,139 in 1940 to 7 0 ,7 8 8
in 1 9 5 0, and then to 74,199 in 1953--an overall increase
of 1 5 .5 per cent for the period. The number of persons
per dwelling unit decreased from 2.54 to 2.14 persons
in 1 9 5 3.
Here, too, there are a far greater number of fe
males than males. The men were largely employed in the
clerical-sales classification. In this area there is
a noticeable lack of children.
This is definitely an area where multi-residential
structures predominate. Rents are median, but homes are
above average in value.
66
Area number 11. Beverly Hills. In 1940, this
area had 50,653 persons. By 1953, the number had in
creased to 7 6,8 6 9, a 5 1 .7 per cent rise. Its population
density had increased from 2,662 to 4,U45 persons per
acre.
The dwelling unit count increased 6 5.3 per cent,
rising from 17,994 in 1940 to 29,769 in 1953. The num
ber of persons per dwelling unit decreased from 2.82
to 2,58 persons per unit in 1 9 5 3.
Here, too, the females outnumber the males. The
proprietary and the managerial groups of occupational
workers live here. It is interesting that the age group
"40 to 4 9" has a far higher percentage in this area
than it has for the county as a whole.
The homes in this area are the most expensive of
any area in the county, and the rents are also the high
est. The number of structures in this section are some
what evenly distributed between single-family and multi-
residential improvements.
Area number 12. Santa Monica Bay. In 1940,
this area had 1 5 7 ,6 5 8 persons. By 1953, the number had
risen to 344,482, an increase of II8 .6 per cent. The
population density increased from 1,608 in 1940 to 3 ,5 2 0
persons per acre in 1 9 5 3*
67
The dwelling unit count increased from 55,411 in
1940 to 1 2 4 ,2 9 3 in 1 9 5 3, a rise of 124.7 per cent. The
density of the dwelling units decreased only slightly,
dipping from 2.84 to 2.77 persons per unit.
The males outnumber the females in this area
and they are employed largely in the skilled trades
field. The age composition and the family size makeup
of the area closely parallels that of the county. Most
of the residential structures in this area are single
family homes.
Area number 13» Inglewood-Adams. In 1940, this
area had 412,345 persons. By 1953, the figure had in
creased to 6 1 1,8 6 5, a rise of 48.6 per cent. Its popula
tion density Increased from 5,295 to 7,840 persons per
acre in 1 9 5 3*
The dwelling unit count increased from 141,631
in 1940 to 223^245 in 1 9 5 3, a 5 7 .8 per cent increase.
The number of persons per dwelling unit dropped from
2 .9 1 to 2 .7 4 persons in 1 9 5 3*
The females far outnumber the males in this area.
Of the employed males, the craftsmen and the clerical-
sales workers predominate. This is a low rental value
area and the value of the homes is average for the county.
About 60 per cent of the residences are single family
68
homes and the remainder are multiple dwellings.
Area number 14. Compton-Southeast. In 1940,
this area had 333,243 persons. By 1953, this number had
increased 64 per cent to 545,488. Its population density
increased from 4,275 to 7 ,0 1 5 persons per acre in 1 9 5 3*
The dwelling unit count increased 71*1 per cent
over the thirteen-year period, rising from 1 0 5 ,5 1 6 in
1940 to 1 8 0 ,7 5 1 units in 1953* The number of persons per
dwelling unit decreased from 3*16 in 1940 to 3*02 persons
per unit in 1 9 5 3*
This is predominantly a workingman’s neighborhood,
with the greatest number of men employed as craftsmen
or operatives. Here, the population is fairly young,
with a high percentage of persons under the age of twenty,
as compared to county average percentages.
The homes and rentals in this section are in the
low value bracket. This area is decidedly improved with
8ingle-family homes.
Area number 15* Whittier-Norwalk. In 1940,
this area had 78,640 persons. Over the next thirteen-
year period, it experienced a 2 5 7 *8 per cent increase,
rising to 281,239 by 1953* This is the greatest per
centage increase experienced by any of the sixteen
economic areas for this given period of time. Its
69
population density rose from 727 in 1940 to 2 ,6 0 1 per
sons per acre in 1 9 5 3*
In the dwelling units classification, this area
experienced the greatest percentage of increase of any
of the sixteen economic areas during the given period
of time. The total rose from 22,361 in 1940 to 91,791
units in 1953, an increase of 311 per cent. The popula
tion density of the dwelling units dropped from 3 *5 2 to
3.06 persons for the same period.
In this area there are more males than females
in total number. Of the employed males, this area has
the highest percentage of laborers. The age group
"under 20" has a greater percentage total than does the
county as a whole. In this section, family size tends
to be large. Homes are of the very low economic value.
In this area can be found the lowest rents of the entire
county. Most of the residential structures are single
family home type.
Area number 16. South Coast. In 1940, this area
had 2 5 4 ,9 0 8 persons. By 1953, the number had increased
to 5 1 0,8 9 2, an increase of 100.5 per cent. The population
density increased from 1 ,6 7 6 in 1940 to 3,360 persons per
acre in 1 9 5 3*
The number of dwelling units increased from
70
93,404 in 1940 to 185,379 in 1953, a 9 8 .7 per cent in
crease. The number of persons per dwelling unit actually
increased in this area— the only economic area to show
such an upward trend. In 1940, it was 2.73 and in 1953
there were 2.76 persons per dwelling unit.
The homes in this area are median to low in
economic value. Rents are also low. There are a large
number of apartment house structures in the area. A
great percentage of the men are employed as service and
labor personnel.
V. OyiERALL AREA TRENDS
The movement of population for the county of Los
Angeles shows the following two major trends. The first
and most important is the influx of new residents, which
come from all parts of the United States. They are not
transients who have come to visit and leave in a few
weeks or months; they are individuals and whole families
who have decided to "go west" and "seek their fortune in
Los Angeles, the momentary spot of opportunity ..." The
extent to which newcomers have flocked to Los Angeles
County has been well established in this chapter.
The other very important movement of population
has been from the central city area to the suburbs. This
71
has been well established by the statistics given for
each of the economic areas. The suburban areas, which
include areas numbers one through five, and twelve
through sixteen, have all shown considerable increase
in their population. In 1940, these ten areas had
1,9 2 3 ,4 0 6 persons living within their boundaries. By
1 9 5 3, the count had risen to 3,7 1 8,8 1 0— an increase of
9 3 .1 per cent for the thirteen-year period. However,
the central city economic areas (areas six through
eleven) increased only 6 .2 per cent for the same thir
teen-year period, rising from 8 6 2 ,2 3 7 in 1940 to 9 1 5 ,8 1 2
in 1 9 5 3* Prom 1950 to 1953, the central city area ac
tually lost population, falling I .5 per cent in its total
count.
Many factors combined to create such a situation
in population movement within the county. Chapter IV
goes into further detail on this subject. One of the
important causes was the desire on the part of the resi
dents of the city area for a "home and garden" of their
own, after having lived in an apartment all through the
war years. Added to this was their built up economic
capacity to carry through a home-buying project.
As the suburban lands fill in with homes, and the
economic capacities of potential home purchasers diminish,
the demand for apartments within the city area will again
72
appear. The effect of this change will be the intensi
fied use of land for apartment houses within the six
economic areas now experiencing a drop in population.
VI. SUMMARY
One of the most astounding population movements
in the history of the United States has been occurring
in Los Angeles County since 1940. As population poured
into the Los Angeles "saucer," the demand for the use
of land for various alternative purposes grew and grew
until the entire old scheme of land values was altered.
Mhat this has to do with land values and land use is
not hard to see.
Simple population increase makes for an ever more
intense use of land, with corresponding rise of the land
value. It also makes for a changing use of land, shifts
from farm use to residential, commercial, industrial,
and institutional use. Furthermore, the pressure of
population forces an overlapping of different uses, all
going on at the same time. The sense of the present
chapter is, therefore, that population movements have
a great deal to do with changing land values.
As was stated earlier, the rapid increase in popu
lation over the thirteen-year period of 1940 to 1953 has
had the effect of bringing into the Los Angeles County
73
area, each year since 1940, the population of a town
the size of Glendale or Pasadena. Retail stores and
all other facilities that would be needed to service
so many people are also needed— again, a problem in
land use and land values.
The resulting dislocations and additions, the
disruptions and the "new" in ideas and in man-made im
provements have all been whirling in a tornado-like
spiral, marking the terrain and horizon with their im
pact. From a Lakewood Village to a Parklabrea Project;
from a Tishman Office Building to an expansive industrial
development at the International Airport; from the re
moval of Fort Moore Hill to the construction of major
freeway arteries--these marks are all signs of rapid
development causing rising land values and all resulting
primarily from a phenomenal increase in the resident
population.
Possibly one of the most important problems
that has arisen as a result of this volcanic change in
the man-land ratio is the struggle for economic domin
ance between the central city and the surrounding com
munities. The next chapter will deal with this important
question of competition, cooperation, and conflict. This
is sometimes called "downtown versus the suburbs," or
"the decline of downtown."
CHAPTER IV
DOWNTOWN VERSUS THE SUBURBS
There is a general impression that the downtown
business district of Los Angeles has definitely declined
in value and importance relative to its position before
World War II, and especially in relation to the great
growth of the suburbs of Los Angeles County.
So great has been the pace of decentralization
of the central residential and business district in favor
of suburban living and shopping that people think that
the core of the city is in many respects no longer
central. Some authorities and students of the subject
are now investigating the problem : "Why the decline?"^
Others, like the owners of Ohrbach’s who recently pur
chased Milliron's, and the owners of the recently built
Statler Hotel, have exhibited faith in the future of
downtown.
This chapter is concerned with the effect of an
1
Statements by Professors M. Mreivogel and G.
Whitnall, in a Seminar in City Planning, The University
of Southern California, Spring, 1953*
75
ever-increasing population and an ever-changing pattern
of land use and fluctuation of land values upon this
trend towards suburbanization. In this section it is
proposed to state what downtown is, and then to indicate
how its position has changed, over the years. This can
be accomplished by dealing with major variables: people,
land use, and land values, together with other elements
in relation to downtown's past and present. It can also
be shown in relation to the rise of the suburbs.
1. WHAT IS DOWNTOWN?
Downtown Los Angeles is basically land and people,
improvements and activity* The central business district
comprises 1.4 square miles, or three-tenths of one per
cent of the city area. It extends from Sunset to Pico
2
Boulevards, and from Los Angeles to Figueroa Streets.
In this tiny space, 250,000 people shop daily. More
than 800 major buyers travel nationwide to bring a wide
selection of goods to downtown which thereby offers’ ex
tensive variety, broad selection and worldwide fashions
to Los Angeles consumers.
Downtown retail stores gross about $500,000,000
2
Interview with Harry Morrison, General Manager,
Downtown Businessmen's Association, Los Angeles, March
1, 1953.
76
of business a year, one-tenth the county total. Downtown
has 700 stores within easy walking distance of each
other; three and three-quarters miles of show windows;
seven major department stores; thirty-one major specialty
shops (mainly in women's apparel); 24.3 acres of sales
rooms for home furnishings; and 1,345,021 square feet
of men's and women's apparel. Total square footage of
offices and lofts is about thirteen million.
Downtown is also movement. There are thirty-nine
streets, four freeways (most of which are now nearing
completion), a half dozen tunnels. There are seventy
motor coach, streetcar and trolley coach lines. These
facilities provide 113 different means of ingress into
the district.
With all this, downtown is able to pay about
$1 5,0 0 0 ,0 0 0 annually in direct and indirect taxes,
which is about 1 0 .5 per cent of the total taxes paid
by city property on city, county, board of education
and flood control district taxes.
But downtown is much more than bare figures. It
3
has "immediate accessibility" to many great facilities,
developed over the years:
3
"Advantages of the Downtown Area," Office
Management and Equipment, March, 1953, p. 63*
77
1. It has the best selection of executive,
secretarial, and other office help.
2. It has the home offices of many local and
nationally important firms.
3. It is the center for professional, business
and trade associations, and business and
fraternal clubs.
4. It has government departments, bureaus, and
agencies— local, state, and federal.
5. It is a tourist and hotel center.
6. And, it is the core of the county for many
other human activities which take place.
More than all these, downtown is the banking and
financial center, and it is the nerve center of trans
portation and communications. The central decisions
made in Los Angeles County are made downtown to this day.
In that sense, the importance of downtown cannot be gain
said; it merely has to be stated.
Yet downtown is slipping in value and in import
ance. Its weakening position can be gleaned from the
remainder of this chapter, through the data covering land
values, population, sales, bank deposits, construction
and the rise of the suburbs.
78
II. THE PARADOXICAL DECLINE
It is very easy to say that downtown is declining.
All the facts and figures which are herewith presented
will point to this downward trend. But one could also
by the same token argue that downtown has grown, and
4
grown quite well at that. Isn't there an optimum to
its curve of growth? Only relatively can one say that
downtown is "declining," because other areas are growing
more rapidly. Is it true that all areas grow in exact
cadence and that the downtown area leads all the others
for all time?
It could very well be that since downtown was
settled first, and is therefore older (having had far
greater difficulty in changing over to the new age of
the automobile), other areas now coming up can grow at
a faster pace. But these areas, too, will level off in
the future and go through a process which downtown may
how be in. Besides, many authorities hold that the down
town area is the only part of the metropolitan area
which can rebuild itself and pay more in taxes than it
receives in return. This is the paradox of the so-called
4
Interview with Mr. A. Wilson, of the Tax Assess
or's Office, Los Angeles County, Los Angeles, California,
April 28, 1 9 5 3.
79
decline•
III. STATISTICS ON THE COMPONENT PARTS
Downtown land values have gone through several
severe fluctuations, measurable from a number of points.
One basis of measuring is assessed valuations.
A. ASSESSED VALUATIONS
The county assessor’s office shows that, with
1940 as a base year of 100, assessments downtown rose
to 120 in 1 9 4 6. That crucial year marked a major turn
ing point for all Los Angeles land values, heralding the
post-war real estate boom. For the current assessment
year, 1953-1954, downtown assessed values will be dropped
5
back to the 100 position of the base year of 1940.
Thus, in a thirteen-year period, assessments
downtown rose and then fell back to where they had
started. Many will agree that, although the authorities
prefer not to be quoted directly, this current drop in
assessed valuations has been brought about by pressure
on the Tax Assessor— -pressure brought by downtown busi
ness interests. Still, the grant of the tax reduction
constitutes public recognition of the decline.
5
Interview with Mr. Wilson, above.
80
It can be argued that assessmentf values will
decline further as the market and revenue values of
property in the central business district decline. Other
cities have lost millions of dollars in assessed value
as these values fell in the central business district.^
But this fall in assessed values is tempered by the fact
that, whereas in 1940 downtown office space was only
81 per cent occupied, in 1953 it is 95 per cent occu-
7
pied. Other factors, such as new construction, reha
bilitation, and civic center development must be kept
in mind when considering this question of "rise or fall"
of the central business district.
Downtown is still proud that the highest assessed
value corner in the county is at Seventh Street and
Broadway. The combined "Map-Table" given in the Appen
dix lists the assessed valuations per front foot for
the year 1950 for two of downtown's busiest streets.
Professional men, dealing with the subject of
decentralization, are asking why property values are
declining and why assessed values are not rising in the
downtown area, when they are climbing everywhere else in
the county. Is downtown falling behind, or are the
6
Automobile Association of America, Parking
Manual, 1952, pp. 29 ff.
7
Interview with Mr. Morrison, above.
81
suburbs making a belated spurt to their true position
in relation to the downtown area--a position the suburbs
should have gained and held many years ago?
True, the assessed valuation of downtown since
1945 has increased far less than the rest of the county
and is now back where it was before the increase of 1946.
But, at the same time, downtown has seen the growth of
really large improvements since the end of World War 11.
Table Vll lists several of the major improvements which
have recently been added. This does not include
$1,200,000 for rehabilitation of 22 store fronts in
1 9 5 0, or $2,0 0 0 ,0 0 0 a year of major capital improvements
8
by department stores.
Thus, because downtown is rebuilding itself, the
paradox of decline is accentuated.
B. POPULATION
Mr. Morrison, of the Downtown Businessmen's Asso
ciation, has pointed out that the central business dis
trict serves the population living within five miles of
Seventh and Broadway. Between 1940 and 1953 there has
8
Interview with Mr. Morrison, above.
82
TABLE VII
POSTWAR CONSTRUCTION IN THE LOS ANGELES
DOWNTOWN.AREA _
Name of building Amount
Mirror Building $6,5 0 0 ,0 0 0
General Petroleum Building 12,000,000
Statler Hotel 22,000,000
Pershing Square Garage 4,5 0 0 ,0 0 0
Southern California Gas Company
Building 2,000,000
Standard Federal Savings and Loan
Company Building ?
Innumerable parking lots which
represent renewed values and
revenues ?
Total $4 7,0 0 0 ,0 0 0
83
been a lack of substantial growth of the resident popula
tion within this area, as against a substantial increase
in the numbers of people living in all other areas of
Los Angeles County. Therefore, the resident proportion
of county buying power of the downtown area has been
growing smaller and, according to Mr. Morrison, the count
of people coming into the downtown area to shop has also
been falling, over the last three years. The net effect
upon the business life of the central area has been
drastic. It is evidenced by a decline in department store
sales (compared to the county as a whole) from 75 per cent
in 1 9 2 9, to 54 per cent in 1 9 3 9, to a low of 2 9 *9 per
9
cent in 1952. The next subheading will deal in more
detail with these sales figures.
The exodus of population has been necessitated
by major civic and commercial improvements. Perhaps this
is a change for the better, considering some of the
slums and older residences in which the downtown popula
tion is still living. After all, downtown was settled
first-^it is old.
9
Security-First National Bank of Los Angeles,
Monthly Summary, Los Angeles, California,.February, 1953,
p. 2.
84
G. RETAIL SALES
Downtown represents the attractiveness of the
west's largest retail shopping center to customers. But
the figures show conclusively that the central business
district is no longer "central," or, possibly, that it
never was.
In retail sales, downtown never had a majority
of total retail sales. It has slipped from having a
fair 2 9 .6 per cent of the Los Angeles County total in
1 9 2 9, to a very poor 8 .6 per cent in 1 9 5 2, as is shown
in Table XXI1:, in the Appendix. In terras of its own
past performance, downtown sales went from $381 million
in 1929 to $223 million in 1 9 3 9, and then back, up to
$500 million in 1952. It declined 41.5 per cent between
„ / . . . -
1929 -and 1 9 3 9, .then increased 124.2 per cent between
1939 and 1 9 5 2. For the twenty-three-year period, from
1929 to 1 9 5 2, downtown shows an overall percentage in
crease of 3 1*2 per cent. This compares unfavorably to
an overall increase for the county, for the same twehty-
three-year period, of 1,931*4 per cent. The "trouble"
with downtown is that, on a comparison basis, the rest
of the county's sales rose so far more.
Table XXll:. also indicates that downtown business
went into a severe decline during the depression, and
85
the area has never really come out of its secondary
position. Thus, another phase of the paradox of the de
cline is that downtown has not dominated county retail
sales for a generation. Therefore, it could not decline
from a position which it never held.
D. DEPARTMENT STORE SALES
In downtown department store sales, there is a
definite downward trend compared to the peak sales year
of 1948, when sales volume was $l8l million. By 1952,
the figure had slipped to $156 million. In Table XXIII
in the Appendix, the actual figures are given which show
that there has been a 1 3 *6 per cent drop in sales in the
central area since 1948, compared to a 24.7 per cent in
crease in the remaining county area.
Since 1929, the percentage increase in sales in
the downtown area has been 46.5 per cent, compared to
the gigantic 9 3 2 .2 per cent increase for the balance of
the county. Thus, 45.1 per cent of the sales made through
department stores in Los Angeles County has been lost to
the downtown area; the suburban department stores now get
this "missing" business-.
E. BANKS AND BANK DEPOSITS
In the number of banking offices and branches,
there is a definite suburbanization pattern which shows
86
again that the central business district was not central
for at least two decades. In 1934, the central area had
40 banks, or 1 0 .7 per cent of the total banking offices
open for business. This figure dropped to 30 banks, or
7.0 per cent of the county total by 1952. Meanwhile,
the rest of Los Angeles County increased its banks from
334 in 1934 to 370 in 1 9 5 2, or from 8 9.3 per cent to
10
9 2.5 per cent. The paradox here is, of course, that
downtown could not very well "decline" from a position
it has not held for decades.
Table XXIV in the Appendix shows the growth of
bank deposits in Los Angeles County. Although the down
town area’s total deposits rose in the eighteen-year
period outlined, the relative holdings of the two areas
have taken a decided turn downward. The central business
district bank deposits lost 28 per cent compared to the
remainder of the county over this eighteen-year period.
IV. FACTORS CAUSING THE DECLINE
The downtown business district of Los Angeles
County is a victim of the disease known as "social old
age. "
Security-First National Bank of Los Angeles,
Monthly Summary, Los Angeles, California, November, 1952,
p. 2.
87
Inability to adjust to the era of the automobile.
Downtown Los Angeles is having tremendous difficulty in
adjusting to the new era of the automobile. This contrap
tion has created an unholy traffic congestion and parking
11
block in the downtown area. The automobile problem,
the loss of resident purchasing power through the loss
of population in the area served by the central business
district, and the rise of the suburbs are major reasons
for the "decline."
Inadequate mass transportation has hindered the
smooth flow of customers into the central business dis
trict. Parking spaces downtown are inadequate in number
and many are in the wrong places. In addition, too many
of the stall are occupied by only one user for the entire
day— and this user is not a downtown customer.
Poor land use pattern. Downtown is a victim of
coming on the scene too early. Land use is, therefore,
frequently poor in terms of human and vehicle movement.
Loading space is almost completely unplanned for. Retail
outlets are "shoestring;" that is, they stretch too long
for easy walking and are particularly too long for walk
ing back with packages in hand.
"Parking in the Downtown Area," Business Meek,
January 24, 1953, P« 43*
88
The termini of buses and street railways are not
well coordinated, and perhaps too many of them congregate
at Pershing Square in the old-style radial pattern.
Rise of the outlying communities. The rise of
outlying communities is a major factor in accentuating
the decline in value and importance of the central busi
ness district. Each of these small outlying communities,
now forty-six in number, has some kind of governmental
unit which pulls towards itself for its own political
reasons. Forty-six pulls can make up an awfully large
drag — and doj
Competition. Downtown merchants themselves have
aided in the decentralization by constructing stores at
the very limit of the five^mile zone previously mentioned
in the population section. Thus, these new stores lo
cated at Wilshire and Fairfax, Hollywood and Vine, Cren
shaw .and Santa Barbara, and in Pasadena all exert a
further "pull" upon the resident buying population which
was previously served by the downtown area. How thin can
this buying power be spread? Since 19^5, of fourteen
department stores built in Los Angeles County, all were
built in outlying areas, none downtown.
Demands of executives. Another major factor in
this suburbanization pattern is the human element on the
89
part of executives. Suburban sites are close to the
homes of the owners who like spacious green lawns and the
smell of grass and fresh air. And it is not unlikely
that management may desire to get out of the "target
12
area for atomic bombs. Management is very interested
in new and beautiful buildings with parking space re
served outside their door and a golf course ten minutes
away by car.
Geography and climate. Geography and climate
are also contributing factors. Los Angeles is the de
centralized area of the nation, par excellence. It
offers geographic, climatic, psychological, and politi
cal reasons for being spread out. Few can be blamed
for taking advantage of them. In addition, it must be
noted that a tremendous number of units of business
activity are newly created since the war. Their owners
and executives, after being in-Los Angeles a few years,
are finding that more permanent location which comes as
the result of careful site selection.
V. SUMMATION
The "decline" of downtown is, as has been explained,
a relative thing. Compared to its own past, downtown is
12
"Should Management Move to the Country?"
Fortune, December, 1952.
90
slipping. Compared to outlying regions, it is losing
ground. Even compared to other cities, like San
Francisco, the central business district of Los Angeles
County is going downward a bit faster.
Based upon the data presented in this chapter,
the conclusion can safely be drawn that, so far, the
pattern of mass in-migration of population has had a
deterrent effect upon relative land use and relative
land values in the central business district of Los
Angeles. The newcomers have settled in the outlying
districts; and they are remaining there to shop in newly
erected shopping centers which tend to compete with the
downtown business and shopping area.
Thus, downtown has experienced a drop in total
business activity between 1 9 ^ 8 and 1 9 5 3* In turn, busi
nessmen have cut costs, resulting in a drop in their
assessed valuation to lessen their county tax burden.
Stores have closed up. It is a known fact that much of
the "carriage trade" has moved out of the downtown busi
ness district.
The changing land use pattern is evidenced by a
change-over from sites improved with buildings to vacant
land used for parking lots. Slum areas are giving way to
civic center improvements; old structures and some new
ones are giving way to major freeways.
91
The downtown "story" has been told from many
different points of view. But the contribution of this
chapter has been to highlight the causes for a shift in
land use and a drop in assessed values in the downtown
area. Because of the loss of resident population and
resident business houses and other factors over which
downtown has no control, land values have dropped. The
drop is continuing. Land uses have been shifting and
will continue to change.
In order to establish this drop in land value on
a foundation of known facts, a survey of land value based
on assessed valuation has been completed. The next chap
ter presents this survey of land values on a comparative
basis.
Yet, it is not to be assumed that the downtown
area is doomed to complete decentralization. The down
town area is rebuilding and will continue to rebuilt,
and disappearing land uses will be replaced by other
uses as dictated by social and economic change.
CHAPTER V
CHANGING LAND VALUES IN SELECTED DOWNTOWN
RESIDENTIAL AREAS
The downtown business section has already been
defined as that area lying within the boundaries of Sunset
to Pico boulevards and Figueroa to Los Angeles streets.
The downtown resident population section has already
been defined as all that area lying within a flve-mlle
radius of the downtown business section. This chapter
will deal with the changing land values and land uses
In the downtown area, as defined.
For the purpose of detailed examination, two
given areas within this flve-mlle radius were chosen.
They are the Westlake section and the Ambassador dis
trict. Both lie due west of the downtown business
district and both have been for thirty or more years
among the most important of the downtown resident sec
tions of Los Angeles County. Both have had a high con
centration of population.^
27^598 persons per square mile in the Westlake
section, and 17,100 persons per square mile In the Am
bassador district.
93
The accumulated data indicate that these two
areas have not kept pace with the changing times. They
have not increased in value as have other areas of Los
Angeles County.
I. METHODS OF VALUE MEASURE
To chart the changing pattern of land values and
land use, it is necessary to find some common denomina
tors which span both time and space. Therefore, it was
decided to use the assessed values of multiple residence
lots: R-3, R-4, and R-5 land In the given test area.
The assessed values are an appraisal of üie value
2
(or uniform proportion thereof) of property. They can
be accepted as one of the best bases for measuring
3
value. The choice of multi-resIdential land as a basis
for charting the changing land values provides another
true common denominator, since this is a highly intense
form of land use, having a well developed market which
2
Tax Talk, J. 0. Stevenson, ed., United Tax
payers, Inc., Los Angeles, California, February 28, 19^3,
p. 1. The laws of the State of California require-that
the County Assessor determine the value of all property so
that "... all property shall be taxed in proportion to its
value."
.3
Some of the leading property appraisers in the
area are employed by the county assessor's office. In
addition, the principles of appraisal used are based on
sound scientific procedures and are kept up to date.
94
has been well tested by long years of occupancy. Newer
areas, predominantly residential, do not have such ad
vantages. This study considered only the assessed value
4
of the land and not the Improvements upon the land.
With these, basic statistics and other supplement
ary data. Tables XXV, XXVI, and XXVII in the Appendix
were completed. They show the trend in land values for
these two sections .of the downtown resident population
area.
II. FINDINGS
From 1940 to 1953, the County of Los Angeles
showed a rise of I68 per cent In Its total assessed
valuation. This Is an Increase from $2,485,980,320 In
1940 to a high of $6,6 6 3,4 7 4 ,1 6 0 In 1953. During this
4
All of the data were gathered from the rolls
of the Tax Assessor's Office. This chapter Is concerned
with the following facts: (l) size of a given lot, and
(2) Its 1940 and Its 1953 assessed value. After the
necessary data had been culled from the records, the
required calculations were completed. Thus, the total
square feet of each lot was obtained. This was combined
with the assessed value of the lot for the given year
to obtain the cents per square foot per lot for 1940 and
for 1 9 5 3.
After these preliminary calculations had been
made, totals were obtained showing the number of lots
used,'the total square feet for all the lots, and the
total assessed value for all the lots in each district,
for the years 1940 and 1953.
. . 95
period the Ambassador district fell 5*65 per cent in its
total assessed value and the Westlake district remained
almost constant, rising a small 2.17 per cent. Together,
both areas fell 2.$6 per cent in total assessed value
over the span of thirteen years. This proves beyond any
doubt that the central city's residential area is stag
nant. Its values (assessed, and therefore market) are
not rising, to keep pace with the Increasing land values
In most other sections of Los Angeles County.
The remainder of this chapter Is devoted to a de
tailed consideration of the two test areas.
A. THE WESTLAKE SECTION
This area lies immediately west of the downtown
business district. Its boundaries are:
North — Third Street
South — Eighth Street
East -- Lucas Avenue
West — Hoover Street
These are the outer perimeters for the test area, al
though not for the Westlake section per se, which Is far
larger and extends beyond these given limits.
The area Is made up of two principle types of land
zoning: R-5 (residential) and C-3 and 4 (commercial)
96
classifications. The latter commercially zoned land
is improved mostly with buildings devoted to office space
or hotel rooms. There are some shopping and other uses
developed on the commercial land, but they are minor.
The residential land Is devoted either to apartment
houses of three stories and more or to single-family
type homes, generally two stories in height and forty
to sixty years old.
The land in the area is mostly level and flat ex-
5
cept for hilly portions In the northeast section.
Population statistics. The 1950 census of popu
lation reported that 34,733 people live within this
test area. Females with a total of 18,574 outnumbered
the males, having 53*4 per cent of the total population.
This Is a highly segregated neighborhood, with
only 1.1 per cent (or 455) non-whites living Inside its
boundaries as of 1950. This compares to an overall non-
white average of 10.7 per cent for the City of Los
Angeles In 1950.
The area with Its 7 per cent of the population
below the age of twenty. Is considerably below the county
^ Situated almost In the center of the test area
Is a large body of water In a public park, called General
Douglas MacArthur Park.
97
percentage figure of 28.2 per cent. In the age grouping
”20 to 49/* it follows the county average fairly closely.
However, in the ”50 and over" age grouping, it shows
46.5 per cent, which is almost double the county per
centage figure of 24.9 per cent for this age grouping.
The preponderance of the "50 and over" age group
in this area is consistent with the type of dwelling
units available In the neighborhood, which consist large
ly of rooms or one and two room apartments, in the low-
rent bracket.
The people in this area, on the average, have
just about a high school education. A median of 11.8
school years completed Is the representative figure.
Westlake Is a highly transient area. More than
35 per cent of Its people had moved to their place of
residence in the area within a year of the date of talk
ing to the census taker. This compares to an overall
city figure of 27 per cent who had moved during the
previous year.
The area studied holds a great attraction for
the single, the widowed, or the divorced person. In Los
Angeles County, 25*3 per cent of the population falls
Into these categories, but within the test area, 5 2 .2
per cent of the people are so classified. And, whereas
only 10.3 per cent of the county population is classified
98
as "unrelated individuals," 48.8 per cent of the people
in this area are so classified. The area has a low per
centage of married couples and families. Further proof
of the remote family status of the individuals in this
area is the figure of I .7 1 persons per household, as
against 2 .9 2 for the entire county.
Most of the employed persons in this area work
as clerks or salespersons. Many fall into the "opera
tives" classification, and their wages are relatively
low. The median income, in dollars, for families and
unrelated individuals was only $1 ,9 6 5 as of 1950» This
was 3 6 .9 per cent below the county average of $3,118.
In this area, the people are literally "crowded
like sardines," for there are 27,598 persons per square
mile. This compares to the overall county figure of
1,021 persons per square mile, and the overall city
figure of 4,350 per square mile.
The foregoing discussion of the population char
acteristics of the test area could well serve as a guide
for the real estate developer and the broker. For the
former, it spells the development (either through recon
version or new construction) of small dwelling units
offered at low rentals. For the broker, it means the
specializing in the sale of apartment buildings and
multi-floor commercial structures, generally office
99
buildings and hotels.
Assessed valuation. There were 526 lots in
cluded in the survey. All were classified as R-5* The
total square footage for all the lots sux^veyed was
3,8 8 2 ,8 3 6 square feet. This results in an average lot
size of 7,3 8 1 .8 2 square feet.
In 1 9 4 0, the total assessed valuation for the
526 lots was $1,2 1 8,8 2 2. The average assessed value per
lot was $2,3 1 0, and the average assessed value per square
foot was $0.3 1 3 9.
By 1 9 5 3, the total assessed valuation had risen
to $1,2 4 5,2 2 6. The average assessed value per lot is
$2,3 6 6, and the average assessed value per square foot
is $0.3 2 0 7.
The change from 1940 to 1953 was a rise of 2.17
per cent as compared to an overall county rise of I68 per
cent. This comparison indicates the decline of values
in the Westlake area as compared to the rest of the city
and county and its own past.
The city planning commission has allowed for the
highest and best possible use through the optimum zone
classifications assigned to the land in this area.
However, the lack of population growth has created a
stagnant state in the redevelopment of the old improve
ment upon the land. This condition accounts for the
100
falling land values.
B. THE AMBASSADOR SECTION
The Ambassador district lies immediately west of
the Westlake area. Its boundaries are:
North — Santa Monica Boulevard
South — Seventh Street
East Vermont Avenue
West -- Van Ness Avenue
These are the outer perimeters for the entire test area
in the Ambassador section, but are not the boundaries
of the Ambassador section per se. That area is larger,
extending beyond these given limits. In addition to
this, the Ambassador as the section is customarily known,
does not really extend as far north as Santa Monica
Boulevard.
The area is made up of two principle types of
land zoning: R-3 and 4, and C-2. The C-2 land is im
proved mostly with two and three story buildings devoted
to stores and office or hotel space. The R-3 and R-4
land is devoted to apartment-hotel structures averaging
five stories in height, to apartment buildings two
stories high, and to single-family type homes, generally
two stories in height and built thirty to fifty years
ago. The land is flat.
101
Population statistics. The 1950 census of popu
lation reported that 5 8 , 1 3 9 persons live within this
test area. Females, with a total of 34,217, far out
number the males. Their percentage figure was 5 8 .8
per cent as compared to a county female percentage of
the population of ^1,8 per cent.
A highly segregated neighborhood, the Ambassador
section has 0.8 per cent, or 472, non-whites living in
side its boundaries. This compares to an overall non
white average of 10.7 per cent for the city of Los
Angeles.
In age grouping, this area is also completely
in character with its type of neighborhood and type of
dwelling units, which consist largely of hotel rooms,
rooms in rooming houses, small apartments and large old
homes in which live the elderly owners of the property.
This area, with its 11.4 per cent of the population below
the age of twenty, is far below the county percentage
figure of 28.2 per cent. In the age grouping "20 to 49"
this test area follows the county average fairly closely.
However, in the "50 and over" age grouping, it shows
41,6 per cent, which is far above the county's 24.9 per
cent.
The people in this area, on the average, have
finished high school and have had a half year of college.
............. . UmvtMicy ot ............
102
A median of 12.4 school years completed is the repre
sentative figure.
People of this section are far less transient
than in the Westlake area. Here, 72.5 per cent of the
people interviewed in the 1950 census had been living
at that same address in 1949» This is the same as the
total for the city as a whole.
For the single, the widowed or the divorced per
son, this area seems to hold a great attraction. In
this area, 45*6 per cent of the resident population falls
into this classification, whereas the overall county
figure is only 25*3 per cent. A total of 29.1 per cent
of the people in this area are classified as "unrelated
individuals," as against 10.3 per cent of the county
population so classified. There are about as many fam
ilies and married couples in relation to total population
in this area as in the city and county generally. This
area does a lot better than the Westlake section on per
sons per household, having a 2.24 ratio figure. However,
this is still well under the county figure of 2.9 2.
Most of the employed persons in this area, as in
the Westlake area, work as clerks or salespersons. But
there are also many persons classified as managers,
officials, and professional or technical personnel.
Still, the income level is below the county average.
........ 103
The median income, in dollars per year, for families
and unrelated individuals, was $2,775 as of 1 9 5 0, which
is 10.9 per cent below the county average of $3,118.
The people are not as crowded for living space
in this area as they are in the Westlake area, although
there are still many persons to the square mile. This
area has 1 7 ,1 0 0 persons per square mile compared to the
city'8 4 ,3 5 0 and the county's 1,021 persons to the
square mile.
Assessed valuation. There were 1,059 lots in
cluded in the survey of this area. A total of 5 6I of
them were classified as R-3 and 498 as R-4. The total
square footage for all the lots surveyed was 8,044,866
square feet. The average per lot is 7,596.65 square
feet.
In 1 9 4 0, the total assessed valuation for the
1 ,0 5 9 lots was $ 2,3 2 5,5 2 6. The average assessed value
per lot was $2,196 and an average assessed value per
square foot was $0.2891.
In 1 9 5 3, the total assessed valuation had fallen
to $2,1 9 4,0 8 7. The average assessed value per lot is
$2 ,0 7 2 and the average assessed value per square foot
is $0.2 7 2 7.
The change from 1940 to 1953 was a drop of 5 .6 5
per cent as compared to an overall county rise of I6 8.O
104
per cent. This comparison indicates a decline for the
Ambassador district as compared to the rest of the city
and county and its own past.
III. THE RESIDENTIAL SECTION OP DOWNTOWN
The location of these two test areas and the high
density of their population indicates a high reliability
in using the combination of these two areas and the re
sults obtained from their survey. These results are
indicative of the trend in land values for the resident
section of the western part of the downtown area of
Los Angeles County. Similar surveys could be run for
the other points of the compass, but they are outside
the scope of this report which is to provide a picture
of the overall land values and a test application to
crucial sub-areas.
There were 1 ,5 8 5 lots included in the entire sur
vey. They were all classified as multi-residential.
The total square footage for all the lots surveyed was
1 1,9 2 7 ,7 0 2 square feet. 7,5 2 5 .3 7 square feet is the
average per lot.
In 1 9 4 0, the total assessed valuation for the
1 ,5 8 5 lots was $3,5 4 4,3 4 8. The average assessed value
per lot was $2,236 and the average assessed value per
square foot was $0.2 9 7 2.
105
In 1 9 5 3, the total assessed valuation fell to
$3,439;3 1 3. The average assessed value per lot is
$2 ,1 7 0 and the average assessed value per square foot
is $0.2884.
The change from 1940 to 1953 was a drop of 2 .9 6
per cent, compared to an overall county rise of I6 8.O
per cent. This comparison indicates the general nature
of the declining values of land in the western part of
the downtown residential section of Los Angeles County.
IV. SUMMATION
The total assessed valuation of the tax rolls of
Los Angeles County has shown.a very substantial increase
over the thirteen-year period from 1940 to 1953. The
total percentage increase is I6 8.O per cent and the vol
ume rise is from two and a half billion dollars to more
than six billion six hundred million dollars.
During this same time, the downtown section of Los
Angeles County did not contribute to this overall in
crease. This is shown by the overall decrease in assessed
value for the western resident population section of
downtown, a decrease of about 3 per cent. In addition,
as was pointed out in Chapter IV, the business section
of the downtown area has also experienced a drop in
106
assessed value of 16.6 per cent.
One of the major contributing factors to this
situation has been the movement of population away from
the central area and to the suburbs. The resulting loss
in earning capacity of the owners of the property has
forced assessed values down. The relationship between
income and assessed value of a property has been elab
orated upon by Mr. Russell C. Horstmann:
The assessor (valuation officer) reports
property values subject to use in measuring tax
assessments. Property value is merely used as
an index of the proportionate ability of in
dividual and-corporate persons to pay taxes.
The modern world has come to regard "net in
come" as the best index of the ability to pay
taxes
Thus it can be seen that the movement of popula
tion away from the downtown area has had an adverse ef
fect upon the land values of that part of Los Angeles
County. In contrast, the increase of resident population
elsewhere has caused most other sections of Los Angeles
County to blossom out and to increase materially in
value. Thus it can be concluded that there is a direct
relationship between numbers of population and land
value. The result of a decrease in the resident popula
tion of the downtown area of Los Angeles County has been
6
Quoted in Tax Talk, op. cit., p. 1.
107
to create static or decreasing land values.
Yet, on the other hand, there is a paradox in
this problem, particularly as affects the downtown area,
and this has been well developed in Chapter IV. For,
although the intensifcation of land use is brought about
by a growing population, the central business district
can experience continuously higher uses of its land at
the same time that it is experiencing a loss in popula
tion due to the demolition of old residential structures.
Vacant land can be used for tall office buildings,
hotels, and parking lots.
These and other highest and best improvements are
also developed on land in and around the central business
district, on land that is developed with old structures
now outmoded or beyond rehabilitation. This process of
rebuilding should halt, at least, the downward trend in
assessed valuation of land in the central business dis
trict, and eventually reverse the trend.
In the final chapter, an attempt is made to
develop the possible future pattern of land use for the
test areas for the next seven years, to I96O. In addi
tion, the chapter will be devoted to a follow-up on the
problem of downtown versus the suburbs, in that an at
tempt will be made to recommend suggestions for improving :
108
the central business area so that the entire downtown
area may shoulder its fair burden of tax responsibility,
since taxes are based on value. Most of these projections
are based on an overall increase in population to i9 6 0.
CHAPTER VI
LOS ANGELES COUNTY TO I960
The population of Los Angeles County should con
tinue to increase at about the pace which has been main
tained for the thirteen-year period from 1940 to 1953,
1
a rate of 142,229 persons each year. The result will
be a continuing urbanization of the rural areas in the
county and a continued movement toward the more intense
use of land in and around the central city area.
In other words, a high rate of population growth
will continue to affect land use and land values roughly
to the same extent as in the past, as developed in this
thesis. At the same time, it is to be expected that
patterns and trends will develop which are not looked
for today, and that resulting social movements may upset
many ultraconservative forecasts.
This chapter will attempt to develop some of
the trends which seem indicated for the next seven years,
up until i9 6 0, the date of the next general population
census.
1
See Table XXVII, in the Appendix.
110
I. THE TEST AREA
For the next seven-year period, to I960, the down
town resident population section of Los Angeles County
will experience varying kinds of growth; for it is a
recognized principle that the downtown area is the only
2
area of a metropolitan region which can rebuild itself.
A. THE AMBASSADOR SECTION
In 1 9 4 0, the population in this area totaled
3
5 8 ,3 7 9 persons. The Sixteenth Census showed this area
to have 58,139 inhabitants in 1950; a drop of 240 per-
4
sons. At least, this part of the residential section
of the central business district was holding its own
in population. However, during the three years from
1950 to 1 9 5 3; this area has begun to show signs of re-
5
building itself. The Tishman Office Building and the
several new insurance company and other small office
buildings on Sixth Street between Vermont and Western
2
According to Dr. Henry Babcock, Lecturer in Real
Estate, The University of Southern California, Spring
Semester, 1950.
^ Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census,
Fifteenth Census of the United States, 1940, Population--
Los Angeles.
]i
Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census,
Sixteenth Census of the United States, 1950.
5 From first-hand observation over the given
2/ 2 ^ ^ ...... . —........ ■ - —....... - ..- ....— f
Ill
Avenues are clear signs that land zones for commercial
purposes in this area is experiencing some new and some
intensified use.
Also, during the past three years, from 1950 to
1 9 5 3; there has begun a noticeable trend toward the in
tensified use of the land zoned for residential purposes.
Many old single-family dwellings are being demolished
and replaced by two-story, multi-residence buildings.
It is the conclusion of this thesis that this trend is
very strong and should continue, resulting in a i960
population in this section which may increase approxi
mately 2 0 .9 per cent over 1 9 5 0, gaining 12,146 new
6
residents to give it a total of 7 0 ,2 8 5 persons.
Based on a continuing 2.24 persons per household
ratio, approximately 5,422 additional dwelling units
may therefore be needed. Nearly all of these additional
units will become available through the construction of
two-story apartment houses. And, given sixteen units
as average per apartment house, this indicates the con
struction of approximately 340 new multi-residential
buildings in this section.
The sites for these new apartment houses will
6
Calculated from census figures for the tracts
in this given area.
112
become available through the demolition, or removal,
of the existing old two-story homes (now thirty to fifty
years of age, which will be forty to sixty years old by
i9 6 0). At the present time there are very few vacant
lots available in this area.
That is the pattern in the trend of land use in
this area--a movement towards the intensified use of all
types of land through the construction of apartment
houses and office buildings, hotels, etc. Whatever land
remains now at a low-density use will tend to be rezoned
to the higher-density residential use (R-3, R-4, and
R-5 for apartment houses and hotels) and commercial use
(C-3 and C-4 for office and other type commercial build
ings ).
Manufacturing will be kept out of this area by
the planning commission to preserve its desirable resi
dential features of nearness to downtown, to jobs, and
to transportation. And, according to the Master Plan
adopted in 1946, this area is destined to remain a high-
density, multi-residential section without any land in
or near it zoned for manufacturing.
But, its main boulevards, such as Vermont and
Western avenues which run north and south, and Sixth
and Third streets, Melrose Avenue, and Wilshire, Beverly,
and Santa Monica boulevards which run east and west, are
113
not expected to experience any radical change in the
type of commercial developments erected on the land
fronting on these thoroughfares. Of all the post-war
commercial improvements in this area, only the Tishman
Office Building exceeds three stories in height; the
others average only two stories. This is largely be
cause of the lack .of demand for space by commercial
renters. This district is distant from the heart of the
central business district and does not warrant extensive
commercial development.
The assessed value of the land in this area has
not kept pace with the overall county rise. But, by
i9 6 0, the new apartment houses which will be built and
the new commercial developments which may come in will
boost the assessed value of the land because far more
lots will have been improved to a higher and better use,
than is the case today.
Thus, the argument that the population in this
limited area will increase leads to the deduction that
land use in this near-downtown area will become intensi
fied. That has to mean apartment house building and
rising land values, since vacant lots are virtually non
existent •
114
B. THE WESTLAKE SECTION
In 1 9 4 0, the population in this area totaled
7
37,353 persons. The Sixteenth Census showed this area
to have 34,733 individuals in 1 9 5 0, ^ drop of 2,620 per
sons, which is a loss of almost 7*0 per cent.^ This
indicates that the area is losing some of its resident
population. Also, because this area borders the central
business district, it can be said that the central busi
ness district has lost some of its resident buying power.
This exodus of population has resulted from sev
eral main factors. The first and most important is the
demolition of old residential structures for two reasons.
First, to make way for the path of the freeway. Secondly,
to make way for commercial improvements, generally a com
pany which has put up a building for itself, or removed
an old structure to provide needed parking space for its
employees and patrons. This elimination of residences,
coupled with a lack of new residential construction in
this area during the ten-year period from 1940 to 1950,
has been the direct cause for the decrease in the
7
Fifteenth Census of the United States, 1940, op.
cit.. Population— Los Angeles.
8
Sixteenth Census of the United States, 1950, op.
cit.. Population— Los AngeTis.
115
9
population.
In this area, the pattern of a trend towards the
more intense use of land is now very evident. Old,
delapidated, and empty structures, both commercial and
residential (but particularly the latter) are being re
placed by new commercial improvements. These may be
highly profitable parking lots or office or other commer
cial buildings. An example of this trend is to be found
on Wilshire Boulevard as one drives west after leaving
the downtown business district. On either side of the
street can be found these new office buildings. And
many of the side streets are being developed with new
buildings for the "old-line” firms.
It is possible that this section may in future
years reverse its downward population trend. This is
due to the lack of a good mass-transportâtion system to
carry the multitude of clerks, salespersons and other
low-salaried personnel employed in the downtown area to
some of the other low-rent, multiresidential sections of
the community. Traditionally, this area has been a low-
rent section and its apartment houses contain small units
9
Based upon a search of the Los Angeles City
building records covering this area, and a first-hand
observation of this area.
116
of bachelors, singles and one-bedroom type of dwellings.
The buildings average three to five stories in height.
When the basic rental income figure per apartment rises
in this area, the construction of apartment houses of
five stories and over, with small units, should become
feasible. However, new residential construction in this
area will have to wait until this necessary adjustment
takes place.
The signs of new commercial construction in the
downtown area by both private enterprise and public
10
agencies are vastly evident. This construction will
increase the number of employed persons in the downtown
area. It is this trend in construction that will lead
to the probability of a growing demand for apartments
in the downtown residential section.
Therefore, it is the conclusion of this study
that within the next seven years, the population of the
Westlake section will grow. By i9 6 0, the total number
of residents in this area may increase approximately I5.I
per cent over 1 9 5 0, gaining 5 ,2 5 6 new residents to give
it a total of 39,989 inhabitants.^^
See Table VII, page 82.
11
Based on population predictions calculated
from census figures for the tracts in this given area.
117
Based on a continuing I.7I persons per household,
approximately 3,074 additional small dwelling units will
be needed. It appears likely that these additional units
will have to become available through the construction of
five-story and taller apartment houses containing bachelor
single and one-bedroom type apartments. Given 60 units
as average per building, this means the construction of
approximately 5I new apartment houses in this area. Be
cause of the high cost of land, the lack of available
land, the need for underground garage space, and the lack
of good "plottage" (i.e., inability to piece together
many contiguous lots to make one large building site),
it will be necessary for builders to improve to five
stories and more.
The sites for these new apartment developments
can become available through the demolition of the old,
two-story, single-family homes which have long ago out
lived their usefulness. In this area, there are almost
no vacant lots upon which to build.
That is the pattern in the trend of land use in
this area; a movement towards the erection of higher and
better improvements upon the land which is now, and has
been for some time, zoned to the highest residential use
(R-4 and R-5) and the highest commercial use (C-3 and
C-4). The residential land will see the construction
118
of tall apartment buildings and the commercial land will
see the construction of tall office and other commercial
buildings.
Manufacturing will be kept out of this area to
preserve its desirable residential and commercial fea
tures. And, according to the Master Plan adopted by the
City of Los Angeles in 1946, this area is destined to
remain a high-density, muItiresidential and commercial
area without any land in or near it zoned for manufac
turing.
This area immediately adjoins the western boundary
of the central business district. Its main boulevards,
such as Eighth, Seventh, Sixth, and Third streets, and
Wilshire Boulevard, which are east-west thoroughfares,
and Union Avenue, which is the north-south thoroughfare,
will gradually see the construction of improvements for
various kinds of commercial enterprises, particularly
office and showroom space. Large hotels should also de
velop along its arteries of traffic. The high economic
capacities of the incoming owners of the improvements
will afford them an opportunity to acquire additional
land or otherwise provide themselves with needed parking
space. It will be either underground or adjacent to the
improvement.
To date, the assessed value of the*land in this
119
area has not kept pace with the overall county rise.
But, by i9 6 0, the new residential and commercial im
provements which will be built will boost the assessed
value of the land.
The conclusion concerning the western part of
the downtown residential section of Los Angeles County
is that it can and probably will improve in value in two
ways: (l) a tremendous increase in commercial improve
ments followed by a goodly number of residential improve
ments, and (2) the resulting influx of resident popula
tion which will tend to revitalize this area. Together,
these strong tendencies will result in improved land use
and land values.
II. THE DOWNTOWN BUSINESS DISTRICT
The downtown business district of Los Angeles is
a far more difficult area to discuss in terms of future
trends. The forces working against it are many and
12
powerful.
First, however, the continuance of the central
business district is certain. George J. Eberle puts
this well :
12
Cited in Chapter IV.
120
While there may be threats at intervals to
the supremacy of the downtown area, the economic
theory of the division of labor, in its broad
sense, would appear to preclude a major trans
formation. The downtown area has functions to
perform which are unique and exclusive. There
must be a focal government and business center.
Second, the downtown district can be improved and
rehabilitated; and it can rebuild itself because of its
great resources and attraction. Many civic and business
organizations are working to improve conditions down
town.
Several major suggestions have been advanced for
the improvement of the central business district. Some
of the most constructive of these are :
1. Ease of accessibility is a key to the future
downtown. Therefore, it is necessary to:
a. Finish as rapidly as possible the freeway
system, thus perhaps doubling the present
number of shoppers who find it convenient
to drive downtown.
b. Add more off-street parking in the right
places. Some of the ways suggested for
doing this are:
13
Quoted by George W. Robbins, et al, Los Angeles
Preface to _a Master Plan (Los Angeles: The Pacific South-
west Academy, 1941), p. 129.
121
(1) A city and county subsidy to build
ers to encourage the construction of
multifloor buildings designed only
for parking,
(2) A commission to be appointed, com
posed of persons representing gov
ernment, business and the public;
this body to be empowered with the
right of eminent domain to obtain
necessary parking space, following
the recommendations of the Los
Angeles City Planning Commission;
the sites to be resold at public
auction with the proviso that:
(a) Only one site go to a customer.
This will establish a competi
tive basis in the field.
(b) In case the land is not used
for the specific purpose of pro
viding commercial parking space,
it revert, at the original auc
tion sale price, back to the
government to be resold.
Develop a community-wide mass transporta
tion system which will enable residents
in the suburbs to get downtown in a
122
reasonable amount of time and at a
reasonable cost.
2. The repopulation of the downtown residential
area is a most important step in revitalizing
the business life of the central business
district. This can be done by encouraging
the redevelopment of the blighted areas around
the central business district. As has been
pointed out, these areas can best serve as
sites for low-rent dwellings. It is up to
the local city and county governments to
stimulate private investors to build by aid
ing them, through:
a. Subsidization through tax concessions.
b. Elimination of certain harsh parking
space provisions.
c. Allowance of three-story walk-up improve
ments.
3* The downtown business area must continuously
sell itself to the people in the county
through a program of continuous advertising
campaigns.
4. Downtown’s future also rests on ending the
menace of smog to health and working condi
tions •
123
The major postwar improvements that have taken
place downtown show how the central business district
14
tends to rebuild itself. All the land in the central
business district is zoned for the highest and best use
(R-5 and C-5) and is available for demolition of out
moded improvements and the construction of "higher and
better" uses.
The assessed value of the land in this area has
not kept pace with the overall county rise. In fact,
1953 has seen a drop in assessed values (to lighten the
tax load, so some say). But, by I9 6O, the many new com
mercial developments will boost the assessed value of
the land in the downtown business district.
Freeways, added off-street parking, a system of
mass transportation, and a revitalized residential sec
tion will all aid in stimulating the redevelopment of
the economic life of the downtown business district.
Then it will rise in (assessed) value and continue to
support its share of community costs.
III. THE TREND FROM RURAL TO URBAN
The rural areas of Los Angeles County are fast
becoming urbanized. The tremendous increase in Los
14
See Table VII, page 82.
124
Angeles County population since 1940 has been largely
15
restricted to the suburban areas. The result has been
15
Using the period 1940 to 1953 as the basis for
charting this trend, the following facts have been culled
from the Fifteenth, Sixteenth, and Seventeenth issues of
the Census of the United States, and from the estimates
published by theLos Angeles County Regional Planning
Commission.
During this thirteen-year period the following
trend was established:
(a) In population:
Los Angeles County + 66.1^
Los Angeles City + 37*3
Remainder of Los Angeles County +102.0
(b) In density of the population:
Los Angeles County + 66.0
Los Angeles City + 30.0
Remainder of Los Angeles County +100.0
(c) In number of dwelling units:
Los Angeles County + 73.0
Los Angeles City + 44.9
Remainder of Los Angeles County +108.0
To establish the rural-to-urban trend more, clearly,
the economic areas, as outlined in Table IX of the Appen
dix, were grouped into two sections: (l) urban, and (2)
rural. This division was made on the basis of population
density, the urban areas having over 9,000 persons per
square mile, and the rural areas having less. They
grouped themselves as follows:
Grouping
Urban
Rural
Economic area number:
6 and 7, 8, 9, 10, and 13
1, 2, 3, 4, 9, 11, 12, 14, 19, and 16
125
a continuous process of intensification of land use.
With the overall movement being that of a change from a
rural to an urban pattern, the result has been that agri
cultural and vacant lands have been newly zoned or re
zoned into urban uses so that they might be subdivided
16
and built upon with urban improvements.
The six urban areas grouped averaged 10,537 persons per
square mile in 1940. The ten rural areas grouped aver
aged 2 ,1 3 3 persons per,square mile.
During the thirteen-year period from 1940 to 1953,
the following trend was established:
(a) In population:
Urban + I8.5#
Rural + 1 0 3 .5
(b) In density of the population:
Urban + 5*0
Rural + 7 8 .0
(c) In number of dwelling units:
Urban + 26.7
Rural + 1 0 1 .3
In 1 9 5 3, the population density of the six urban
areas grouped averaged 11,083 persons per square mile.
This was a five per cent increase over 1940. But, the
rural areas grouped averaged 3,787 persons per square
mile. This was a 78 per cent increase over 1940.
These given sets of data sustain the argument
that the tremendous increase in Los Angeles County popu
lation has been largely restricted to the suburban areas.
16
Tables X through XV in the Appendix clearly
outline this pattern of transformation of Los Angeles
County’s rural suburbs into urban suburbs. They show
that in 1940, Los Angeles County was only one-third
126
IV. LOS ANGELES COUNTY IN THE NEXT SEVEN YEARS
Barring a major economic catastrophe, the next
seven years, to 1 9 6O, should see a continued growth in
population and a continued intensification of land use;
from rural to urban, and from low-density urban uses to
higji-density urban uses.
In 1 9 4 0, Los Angeles County population totaled
17
2,7 8 5 ,6 4 3 inhabitants. By 1950 the Los Angeles County
population had grown 49 per cent, reaching a total of
4,1 5 1 ,6 8 7 persons. By April, 1953, the county popula
tion had grown to 4,634,622 residents, an 11.6 per cent
19 ^ -
increase in three years. By I960, Los Angeles County
urban. Today, in 1953, it is almost one-half urban.
A total of 159*3 square miles, or 101,974 acres, in the
period from 1940 to 1953, have changed from rural land
use to urban land use. This is a rate of 1.3 per cent
a year of all the land area in the southern portion of
Los Angeles County being changed from rural to urban use.
Table XV clearly points out that in 1940, of the
total amount of land devoted to the five most important
rural land uses (small-farm homes, tree crops, general
agriculture, non-urban streets and dairies and stables),
by 1 9 5 3, half of all this land had gone into urban uses.
Fifteenth Census of the United States, 1940.
Sixteenth Census of the United States, 1950.
19
According to the Regional Planning Commission,
County of Los Angeles, April 1, 1953*
127
will probably have gained approximately 933,965 new
residents, to give it a total of 5,568,587 persons.
This is a 34.2 per cent increase over 1950, and a 20.2
20
increase over 1 9 5 3.
Based on a continuing 2.92 persons per household
ratio, there will be needed approximately 319,851 addi
tional dwelling units, not counting demolitions or
filtering. About 118,025 of them will be in the form
of single-family dwellings, and the remainder will prob-
21
ably be multiple residences.
The sites for the single-family dwellings will
come largely from rural land newly zoned for urban uses,
which limits the single-family home developments largely
to the suburban areas of Los Angeles County. Conversely,
the multiple residences will tend to be developed on
land situated in and around and close to the central
city area.
That is the trend of land use in the Los Angeles
County area, a movement in the direction of intensified
20
See Table XXVII, in the Appendix.
21 - ■
Mr. Milton Breivogel, currently Director of
Planning for the County of Los Angeles, in a speech be
fore the Planning Committee of Town Hall of Los Angeles,
on March 30, 1953, outlined the prospects for Los Angeles
City to i9 6 0, as he saw them. At that time he was
Principal City Planner for the City of Los Angeles.
128
use of all types of land not currently improved to a
highest and best use.
Trends to 1 9 6O for the City of Los Angeles have
22
been unofficially presented by a city official. They
merit inclusion here because part of the theme of this
thesis is the trends to I96O for Los Angeles County;
and the importance of the city to the county is ines
capable. This official foresaw the following:
1. The population of Los Angeles City will reach
2 .5 million by I9 6O.
2. The San Fernando Valley is the area of great
est expansion in the City of Los Angeles. By
i9 6 0, its total population (included in the
area inside the city limits of Los Angeles)
will reach 6 0 0 ,0 0 0 compared to 3 0 0 ,0 0 0 in
1 9 5 0. There, some 30 square miles (19,200
acres) of agricultural land will be subdivided
for residential use in the next seven years.
3. Thus, approximately 161,000 additional dwell
ing units will have to be built by 1 9 6O in
the city. About 100,000 units will be in
single-family dwellings, and the remainder
will be multiple residences.
22
Mr. Milton Breivogel; see footnote 21, p. 12%.
129
4. By i9 6 0, the City of Los Angeles will need:
a. Fourteen new fire stations.
b. Five new health centers.
c. Five new libraries.
d. Sixteen new sites for public works (incin
erators, garbage and rubbish disposal,
street maintenance yards, traffic engineer
ing yards).
e. Fifty new elementary schools, ten new
junior high schools, six new senior high
schools, and two new junior college sites.
5. 8 ,0 0 0 new off-street parking spaces will have
been provided in the downtown area.
6. There will be a continued decentralization of
buildings from downtown, especially to branch
offices of government (police stations, fire
stations, library, health, administrative
facilities).
7. Los Angeles County will have 2,950,000 motor
vehicles by i9 6 0, with 80 miles of- freeways
costing $202,000,000.
8. 30 new neighborhood playgrounds will be needed.
9. Self-contained community shopping centers will
become characteristic of the entire Los
Angeles area.
130
10. The process of decentralization of commerce,
industry, and residences will continue.
V. SUMMATION
There is no single conclusion possible with re
gard to the pushing and growing population, the rising
land values, and the changing land use pattern of Los
Angeles County. But, it is possible to sum up the size
of the growth, the direction of development and thus
to indicate probable next steps in land utilization and
valuation.
As a geographic site, Los Angeles County is
blessed with such favorable climate as to ensure a full
year of uninterrupted activities. It has a sufficiently
varied terrain to stimulate the many activities which
modern man has undertaken.
Los Angeles County has had such a continuous and
large population increase through in-migration as to put
pressure upon its varied facilities— as compound inter
est does upon savings. The more people who come, the
greater seems the desire of others to come, and this
large influx of people continually restimulates human
activities in this area.
The result of this mass influx of people and
131
excess of births over deaths has been to change land uses
as rapidly as has ever been experienced. The character
of the area has reacted upon the newcomers to such an
extent that precedent upon precedent is shattered. Wit
ness the rise in importance of the county area as against
the city area. Witness, too, the continued horizontal
growth with almost no real vertical growth, although
the first signs of real vertical construction are un
folding rapidly.
The resulting struggle of the older city area
to maintain its position in relation to the county as
a whole, expressed in the popular phrase "downtown versus
the suburbs," is probably more accentuated here in Los
Angeles County than anywhere else in the country. But,
both the main center and the outlying centers can grow,
each at its own rate.
Los Angeles County will continue to grow and
prosper because its people are dynamic and resourceful.
By i9 6 0, it may well rank second only to New York County
in population. By 1970, Los Angeles County may well
be the leading county in the United States from all the
major points of view.
BIBLIOGR APH Y
BIBLIOGRAPHY
A. BOOKS
Bigger, Richard, and James D. Kitchen, How the Cities
Grew. Los Angeles, California: University of
California Press, 1952. 256 pp.
California State Chamber of Commerce, Economic Survey
of California and Its Counties. Sacramento,
California: California StatePrinting Office,
1 9 5 0. 1064 pp.
Carr, Henry, Los Angeles, City of Dreams. New York:
D. Appleton-Century Company, 1935* 403 pp.
Engelhardt, Zephyrin, San Gabriel Mission and the
Beginnings of Los Angeles. San Gabriel, Califor
nia: Published by the San Gabriel Mission, I9 2 7.
369 pp.
Hansom, Earl, Los Angeles : Its People and Its Homes.
Los Angeles : The Haynes PoundatiorT^ 1944. 206
pp.
Hoyt, Homer, One Hundred Years of Land Values in
Chicago. Chicago : The University of Chicago
Press, 1 9 3 3. 519 pp.
International City Managers Association, Local Planning
Administration. Chicago : International City
Managers Association, 1950. 337 pp.
Kidner, Frank L., and Philip Neff, Economic Survey
of the Los Angeles Area. Los Angeles, Galifornia:
TOe Haynes Foundation, I9 4 5. 151 PP.
Los Angeles Board of Harbor Commissioners, Los Angeles,
the Great Seaport of the Southwest.; Los Angeles,
California : Board of Harbor Commissioners, 1921.
55 pp.
134
Robbins, George ¥., al, Los Angeles : Preface to ^
Master Plan - (additional contributorsl Clarence A.
Dykstra, Arthur G. Coons, Malcolm H. Bissell,
Samuel B. Morris, Clifford M. Zierer, E. E. East,
George J. Eberle, and Deming L. Tilton). Los
Angeles, California: The Pacific Southwest
Academy, 1941. 303 PP.
Robinson, W. , Panorama, A Picture History of South-
ern California. Los Angeles, California :
Anderson and Ritchie, 1953. 160 pp.
Scott, Mell, Cities Are for People. Los Angeles;
California: The Pacific Southwest Academy, 1942.
109 pp.
, Metropolitan Los Angeles. Los Angeles,
California: The Haynes Foundation, 1949. 192 pp.
Sert, J. L., Can Our Cities Survive? Cambridge,
Massachusetts : Harvard University Press, 1942.
259 pp.
B. PERIODICAL ARTICLES
"Advantages of the Downtown Area," Office Management
and Equipment, March, 1953., pp. b3 ff.
"Parking in the Downtown Area," Business' Week, January
24, 1953, pp. 43 ff.
"Should Management Move to the Country?" Fortune,
December, 1952.
C. GOVERNMENT PUBLICATIONS
Hall, Bryant, A Decimal Classification of the Urban
and Rural Uses of~“Land. Los Angeles, "California:
Los Angeles County Regional Planning Commission,
1 9 3 6. 36 pp.
Los Angeles City Planning Commission, Accomplishments
(Annual publication). Los Angeles, California:
City Planning Committion, 1935 through 1952.
Approximately 50 pp.
135
Los Angeles County Regional Planning Commission, Land
Use Survey: County of Los Angeles. Los Angeles,
California: County Regional Planning Commission,
June, 1 9 4 0. 53 PP*
, Master Plan of Land Use. Los Angeles,
California: Courrty Regional Planning Commission,
1 9 4 1. 110 pp.
, Business Districts. Los Angeles, California:
County Regional Planning Commission, 1944. 29 pp.
, Guiding Growth (Annual publication). Los
Angeles, California: County Regional Planning
Commission, 1935 through 1952. Approximately
60 pp.
, Population and Dwelling Units. Los Angeles,
California:County Regional Planning Commission,
April, 1 9 5 3, and October, 1953*
Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, F. 0. B.
Los Angeles. Los Angeles, California: Department
of Water and Power, August, 1947* 40 pp.
United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the
Census, Fifteenth Census of the United States.
Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office,
1940.
, Sixteenth Census of the United States.
Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office,
1950.
, Seventeenth Census of the United States.
Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office,
1 9 5 2.
D. PAMPHLETS
American Automobile Association, Parking Manual,
1 9 5 2. 29 pp.
Cottrell, E. A., ej^ al. Metropolitan Los Angeles
(additional conTFibutors: H. L. Jones, R. Bigger,
J. D. Ritcher, and J. N. Jamison). Los Angeles:
The Haynes Foundation, 1952. 24.pp.
136
Kinsey, Don Jackson, The Water Trail. Los Angeles:
Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, 1928.
39 pp.
Los Angeles Bureau of Municipal Research, Studies in
Land Valuation. Los Angeles: Bureau of Municipal
Research, 1932. 27 pp.
Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce, Los Angeles, the
Center of an Agricultural Empire. Los Angeles :
Chamber of Commerce, 1925. n.p.
, The Researcher (monthly publication). Approxi
mately 15 pp.
Neff, Philip, and Annette Weifenbach, Business Cycles
in Los Angeles. Los Angeles : Chamber of Com-
merce, 1949. 25 pp.
Security-First National Bank of Los Angeles, Business
Conditions in Southern California (monthly publi-
cation). Los Angeles : Security-First National
Bank. 4 pp.
Stevenson, J. 0., ed., Tax Talk (weekly publication).
Los Angeles: United Taxpayers, Inc., February 28,
1953. 2 pp.
E. NEWSPAPER ARTICLE
"Los Angeles— America’s 3rd Market," Los Angeles Times,
April 4, 1952.
F. INTERVIEWS
Bennett, Charles, Head of the Los Angeles City Planning
Department, Los Angeles, California, June 16, 1953
Breivogel, Milton, Head of the Los Angeles County
Planning Department, Los Angeles, California,
March 10, 1953*
137
Commons, John, Chief Planner, Los Angeles County
Planning Department, Los Angeles, California,
April 15, 1 9 5 3.
Hasegawa, Akira, Chief Population Statistician, Los
Angeles County Planning Department, Los Angeles,
California, April 1 5, 1953.
Jamieson, Conrad, Vice-President, Security-First
National Bank of Los Angeles, Los Angeles, Cali
fornia, August 6, 1 9 5 3.
Mayers, Dr. Jackson, Economist, Welton Beckett and
Associates, Los Angeles, California, March 24,
1 9 5 3.
Morrison, Harry, General Manager, Downtown Business
Men's Association, Los Angeles, California,
March 1, 1953.
Ryan, Harold J., Agricultural Commissioner, County of
Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, August 2 5^
1 9 5 3.
Temple, A., Official Historian, San Gabriel Mission,
San Gabriel, California, June 9, 1953.
Wilson, A., Tax Assessor's Office, Los Angeles, Cali
fornia, April 2 8, 1 9 5 3.
G. MISCELLANEOUS SOURCES
Los Angeles City Chamber of Commerce.
Los Angeles City Planning Department.
Los Angeles County Planning Department.
Los Angeles Times, Market Division.
Security-First National Bank of Los Angeles.
A P P E N D I X
FERNANDO
TUJUNGA
CHATSWORTH
ENCINO
BURBANK
RASADE
&
% MONROVIA^ GLENDALE
CALABASAS
1
PO**e#IA
CITRUS
SAN VICENTE
NORTHEAST
MALI BU
%
SAfjTA MDNICA
L ' - V | i l î C E PUENTE M IL LS
%
GlEWOOgk)
NORWALK
COMPTO
CALABASAS
LONG éÉÀ
MALIBU
PAL^S VERDES
STATISTICAL AREAS
POPULATION AND HOUSING SURVEY
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
THE HAYNES FOUNDATION
BASE MAP COURTESY THE REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
SCALE
TABLE VIII
MAP OP LOS ANGELES COUNTY: SIXTEEN ECONOMIC AREAS
LEGEND
I I INCORPORATED
UNINCORPORATED
NORTH COUNTY
140
TABLE IX
GROUPING OF AREAS
Economic Statistical areas --
Area* County of Los Angeles
1 Tujunga, Burbank, San Fernando, Enclno,
Chatsworth
2 Glendale
3
Pasadena
4 Pomona, Puente Hills, Citrus, Monrovia,
El Monte
5
San Gabriel
6 Northeast
7
East
8 Central
9
Milshire
10 Hollywood
11 Beverly Hills
12 South Beach Cities, Santa Monica-Venice,
San Vicente
13
Inglewood, Adams
14 Compton, Southeast
15
Whittier, Norwalk
16 Long Beach, Dominguez, Palos Verdes
* As classified by the Los Angeles Times.
141
TABLE X
SUMMARY OP LAND USES FOR THE SOUTH PORTION OP
LOS ANGELES COUNTY (1940)
Type of land use Acres
Square
miles
Percent
of area
1. Single family residence 76,552 119.6 ‘ 9.7 0!
2. Multiple residence
4,739
7.4 O.60I
3.
Streets--urban
65,929
103.0
8.35
4. Streets--non-urban 17,618
27.5 2.23
5.
Commerce 7,203 11.3 0.91
6. Industry— manufacturing 8,077 1 2 .6 1.02
7.
Utilities--gas, water, power 4,702
7.3 0.60;
8. Railroad purposes 8 ,0 0 6
12.5 •
1.021
9.
Recreation 14,812
23.1
1.8 8|
10. Schools and colleges 4,885 7.6 0.62
1 1. Other institutions 3 ,8 8 0 6 .1
0.49
1 2. Small-farm homes
8,253 12.9 1.05 1
13.
Tree crops
92,171
144.0 11 .68
Sources : Based on interviews with and data obtained from
the heads of various county departments, in
cluding: regional planning, parks and recreation, oil
and gas, and farm advisor; also data obtained from the
Chamber of Commerce.
No single record of the major changes up to
1953 exists outside this study, and none is contemplated
by official bodies. Yet it is precisely this record of
significant alterations in the land use pattern which is
of great meaning to land valuation.
142
TABLE X (continued)
SUMMARY OF LAND USES FOR THE. SOUTH PORTION OF
LOS ANGELES COUNTY (1940)
Type of land use Acres
Square
miles
Percent:
of are#
14. General agriculture
167,749
262.1
21.26 i
15.
Dairies and stables 4,928
7.7 0.63 1
16. Hilly grazing land 30,223
47.2
3.83 !
17.
Oil wells and storage
14,691
23.0 1.86 I
18. Water courses, etc. 19,428 30.4 2.46
19.
Cemeteries, etc.
1,773
2.8 0.22 1
20. Vacant subdivided— urban
67,673 105.7 8.57 1
21. Vacant acreage— urban
12,131
19.0
1.54
22. Vacant non-urban
71,277
111.4 9.02 I
23.
Vacant mountainous 82,538 129.0 10.45
Total 789,238 1,233.2 100.00 1
143
TABLE XI
SUMMARY OF LAND USES FOR THE SOUTH PORTION OF
LOS ANGELES COUNTY —
APRIL 30, 1953
Type of land use Acres
Square
miles
Percent
of area
1. Single family residence 132,272
206.7
16.78
2. Multiple residence 8,144
12.7 1.03 I
3.
Streets— urban
115,929
181.1
14.69
4. Streets— non-urban 8,832 13.8 1.12 ;
5.
Commerce 16,666 26.0 2.11 1
6. Industry— manufacturing 18,628 29.1 2.36 1
7.
Utilities— gas, water, power 8,064 12.6 1.02 1
8. Railroad purposes 8,006
12.5
1.01
9.
Recreation
18,515 28.9 2.35
10. Schools and colleges
8,127 12.7 1.03
11. Other institutions 6,464 10.1 0.82
12. Small-farm homes 4,160
6.5 0.53
13.
Tree crops 54,230
84.7 6.87 1
Sources ; Based on interviews with and data obtained from
the heads of various county departments, includ
ing: regional planning, parks and recreation, oil and gas,
and farm advisor; also data obtained from the Chamber of
Commerce.
No single record of the major changes up to
1953 exists outside this study, and none is contemplated
by official bodies. Yet it is precisely this record of
significant alterations in the land use pattern which is
of great meaning to land valuation.
144
TABLE XI (continued)
SUMMARY OF LAND USES FOR THE SOUTH PORTION OF
LOS ANGELES COUNTY -- APRIL 30, 1953.
Type of land use Acres
Square
miles
Percent!
of area
14. General agriculture
76,477
119.4
9.69
15.
Dairies and stables
2,275
3.6 0.29
16. Hilly grazing land
30,223
47.2
3.83
17.
Oil wells and storage 23,872
37.3
3.02
18. Water courses, etc. 19,428 30.4 2.46 1
19.
Cemeteries, etc. 3,520
5.5 0.45
20. Vacant subdivided— urban
33,903
53.0 4.30 ;
21. Vacant acreage--urban
5,999
9.4 0.76 1
22. Vacant non-urban 102,966 161.0 13.04
23.
Vacant mountainous 82,538 129.0 10.46 :
Total 789,238 1,233.2 100.00
145
TABLE XII
COMPARISON (1940 TO 1953) OF THE CHANGES IN THE AMOUNT
OF AREA DEVOTED TO THE GIVEN LAND USES IN THE SOUTH
PORTION OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY
Type of
Numerical ^
increase or decrease
Percentage
increase
land use
Acres
Square
miles
or
decrease*
1. Single family resi
dence 55,720
87.1
73.0 1
2. Multiple residence 3,405 5.3
72.0 1
3.
Streets--urban 20,000 78.1 76.0
4. Streets— non-urban -8,786
-13.7.
-50.0 !
. 5.
Commerce 9,463 14.7
131.6
6. Industry— manufacturing 10,551
16.5 130.9
7.
Utilities--gas, water,
power 3,362
5.3
71.4 ^
8. Railroad purposes 0 0.0 0.0 1
9.
Recreation
3,703
5.8 25.0 I
10. Schools and colleges 3,242
5.1
66.2
11. Other institutions 2,584 4.0
66.5
12. Small-farm homes -4,093 -6.4
-49.5 ;
* Unless preceded by a minus sign (-), indicating a de
crease during the period from 194O to 1953, all figures
given represent increases during that period.
Sources : See Tables X and XI.
146
TABLE XII (continued)
COMPARISON (1940 TO 1953) OF THE CHANGES IN THE AMOUNT
OF AREA DEVOTED TO THE GIVEN.LAND. USES IN THE SOUTH
PORTION OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY
Type of
land use
Numerical
increase or decrease*
Percentage
increase
Acres
Square -
miles
or
decrease*
13.
Tree crops -37,941 -59.3 45.7 ;
14. General agriculture -91,272
-142.7 -54.5 ;
15.
Dairies and stables
-2,653
-4.1
-53.7 1
l6. Hilly grazing land 0 0.0 0.0
17.
Oil wells and storage 9,181
14.3 62.7 1
18. Water courses, etc. 0 0.0 0.0
19.
Cemeteries, etc.
1,747 2.7
98.2
20. Vacant subdivided—
urban -33,770
-52.7 -49.7
21. Vacant acreage--urban -6,132 —9.6 -50.6 ;
22. Vacant— non-urban
31,689
49.6
44.7
23.
Vacant mountainous 0 0.0 0.0
147
TABLE XIII
URBAN AND NON-URBAN LAND USES FOR THE SOUTH PORTION
. OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY FOR 194°
Use Acres
Square
miles
Area
"Percent
Grand total 789,238 1,233.2 100.00
Total urban
275,937 431.1 34.98
Total non-urban 513,301 802.1 65.02
U R B A N
1. Single family residence 76,552 119.6
9.70
2. Multiple residence
4,739
7.4 0.60
3.
Streets--urban
65,929
103.0
8.35
4. Commerce 7,203 11.3 0.91
5.
Industry--manufacturing
8,077
12.6 1.02
6. Utilities--gas, water, power 4,702
7.3
0.60
7.
Railroad purposes 4,496 7.0 0.58
8. Recreation 14,812
23.1
1.88
9.
Schools and colleges
4,885 7.6 0.62
10. Other institutions 2,344
3. ; 7
0.30
11. Water courses 2,394 3.8
0.31
12. Vacant subdivided—-urban
67,673 105.7 8.57
13.
Vacant acreage--urban
12,131
19.0
1.54
N 0 N - U R B A N
14. Small-Farm homes
8,253 12.9 1.05
15.
Tree crops
92,171
144.0 11.68
l6. General-Agriculture
167,729
262.1 21.26
17. Streets— non-urban 17,618
27.5 2.23
18. Dairies and stables 4,928
7.7 0.63
19.
Hilly grazing land
30,223
47.2
3.83
20. Railroad purposes 3,510 5.5
0.44
21. Oil wells and storage 14,691
23.0 1.86
22. Other institutions 1,536 2.4 0.19
23.
Water courses 17,034 26.6
2.15
148 1
TABLE XIII (continued)
URBAN AND NON-URBAN USES FOR THE SOUTH PORTION
LOS ANGELES COUNTY FOR 1940
OF
Uees Acres
Square
miles
Area 1
Percent
24. Cemeteries^ etc.
25. Vacant--non-urban ,
26. Vacant--raountainous
1,773
71,277
82,538
2.8
111.4
129.0
0.22 :
9.02 1
10.461
Square miles Per cent
Used Vacant Used Vacant
Urban--used 309.8
25.1
Urban -- vacant
124.7
10.1 ;
Non-Urban— used
558.3 45.3
Non-urban--vacant 240.4
19.5
Total 868.1
365.1
70.4 29.6 1
149
TABLE XIV
URBAN AND NON-URBAN LAND USES FOR THE SOUTH PORTION
OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY FOR APRIL 30,,1953
Use Acres
Square
miles
Area
Percent
Grand total 789,238 1,233.2 100.00 ;
Total urban
377,911
590.4 47.88
Total non-urban
411,327
642.8 52.12
U R B A N
1. Single family residence 132,272
206.7
16.76
2. Multiple residence 8,144
12.7 1.03 ,
3.
Streets— urban
115,929
181.1
14.69 !
4. Commerce 16,566 26.0 2.11
5.
, Industry— manufacturing 18,628 29.1 2.36 ;
6. Utilities— gas, water.
power 8,064 12.6 1.02 :
7.
Railroad purposes 4,496 7.0
0.57 :
8. Recreation
18,515 28.9 2.35 :
9.
Schools and colleges 8,127 12.7
1.03
10. Other institutions 3,904 6.1
0.49 :
11. Water courses 3,264
5.1
0.41
12. Vacant subdivided--urban
33,903
53.0 4.30 ;
13.
Vacant acreage— urban
5,999
9.4 0.76 :
N 0 N - U R B A N
14. Small-farm homes 4,160
6.5 0.53 1
15.
Tree crops 54,230
84.7 6.87
16. General Agriculture
76,477
119.4
9.69 I
17.
Streets--non-urban 8,832 13.8 1.12 :
18. Dairies and stables
2,275
3.6 0.29
19.
Hilly grazing land 30,223
47.2
3.83 :
20. Railroad purposes 3,510 5.5
0.44 :
21. Oil wells and storage 23,872
37.3
3.02
150
TABLE XIV (continued)
URBAN AND NON-URBAN USES FOR THE SOUTH PORTION OF
LOS ANGELES COUNTY FOR.APRIL 30, 1953
Use Acres
Square
miles
Area
Percent
22. Other institutions 2,560 4.0
0.33 1
23.
Water courses 16,164
25.3
2.05 :
24. Cemeteries, etc. 3,520
5.5 0.45 i
25.
Vacant— non-urban 102,966 161.0 13.04 :
26. Vacant--mountainous 82,538 129.0 10.46 ;
Square miles Per cent
Used Vacant Used Vacant
Urban— used 528.0 42.8
Urban— vacant 62.4
5.1
Non-urban— used 352.8 28.6
Non-urban--vacant 290.0
23.5
Total 880.8 352.4 71.4 28.6
151
TABLE XV
COMPARISON (1940 TO 1953) OF THE CHANGES IN THE AMOUNT
DEVOTED TO URBAN AND TO
SOUTH PORTION OF
NON-URBAN LAND USES
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
IN THE
Numerical
Tvoe of increase or decrease*
land use Square
Acres miles
Percentage
increase I
or
decrease*
Grand total 789,238 1,233.2 100.00 ;
Total urban
101,974 159.3 37.1
Total non-urban 101,974 -159.3 -19.9
U R B A N
i
1. Single family residence 55,720 87.1
73.0
2. Multiple residence 3,405 5.3
72.0
3.
Streets— urban 50,000 78.1 76.0
4. Commerce
9,463 14.7
131.6
5.
Industry--manufacturing 10,551
16.5 130.9
6. Utilities— gas, water.
power 3,362
5.3
71.4
7.
Railroad purposes — —
—
8. Recreation
3,703
5.8 25.0
9.
Schools and colleges 3,242
5.1
66.2
10. Other institutions 1,560 2.4
66.7
11. Water courses 870
1.3
34.2
12. Vacant subdivided--
urban -33,770
-52.7 -49.7
13.
Vacant acreage--
urban -6,132 -9.6 -50.6
N 0 N - URBAN
i
Unless preceded by a minus sign (-), indicating a
decrease during the period from 1940 to 1953j all
figures given represent increases during that period.
152
TABLE XV (continued)
COMPARISON (1940 TO 1953) OF THE CHANGES IN THE AMOUNT
OF AREA DEVOTED TO URBAN AND TO NON-URBAN LAND USES
IN THE SOUTH PORTION OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY
Numerical Percentage |
Type of
increase or decrease increase
land use Square
or
Acres miles
decrease
14. Small-farm homes -4,093 -6.4
-49.5
15.
Tree crops -37,941 -59.3
-45.7
16. General agriculture -91,272 -142.7
-54.5
17.
Streets--non-urban -8,786 -13.7 -50.0
18. Dairies and stables -2,653 -4.1 -53.7
19.
Hilly grazing land — — —— ——
20. Railroad purposes
— — — — — —
21. Oil wells and storage 9,181 14.3 62.7
22. Other institutions 1,024 1.6
64.9
23.
Water courses -870. -1.3
-4.9
24. Cemeteries, etc.
1,747 2.7
98.2 1
25.
Vacant--non-urban 31,689 49.6
44.7
26. Vacant--mountainous
Square miles Per cent
Used Vacant Used Vacant ;
Urban— used 218.2 70.4
Urban— vacant -62.3 -49.9
Non-urban— used -205.5 •36.8
Non-urban— vacant 49.6 20.4 :
Total
12.7 -12.7 1.5 -3.5 1
153
TABLE XVI
POPULATION OP THE CITY AND COUNTY OP LOS ANGELES
(1769 TO 1953)
Year
Total Los Angeles
population
Per cent of in
crease over
preceding date
City
versus
County
W e
County City County City
1769
12^ 0 —— — — — —
1781 44^ —— ——
1018 1° —— — —
1850 3,530 1,610 —— +45.6 1
i860
11,333 4,385
221.0
171.7
-38.6 !
1870
15,309
5,728 35.0 7.8 -37.4
1880 33,381
11,183
117.6
95.3 -33.5
1890 101,444
50,395
204.0
351.5
+49.6 I
1900 170,298
102,479
67.8 103.6 +60.2
1910 504,131 319,198 103.0 211.0
+62.3
1920
936,455 576,673
85.8 80.6
-61.5
b
Figures in this column refer to Los Angeles City’s
percentage of Los Angeles County.
Includes the 2 padres and 10 soldiers who established
the San Gabriel Mission.
Includes the 11 families (44 individuals) of settlers
who came from San Gabriel Mission and founded the
Pueblo de Los Angeles.
Includes the first American to settle in Southern
California.
154-
table XVI (continued)
POPULATION OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OP LOS ANGELES
(1769 TO 1953)
Year
Total Los Angeles
population
Per cent
crease
preceding
of in-
over
date
City !
versus
County
(in %);
County City County City
1930
2,208,942 1,238,048 136.0
114.7
-56.0 1
1940
2;785,643 1,504,277
26.1
21.5
_54.0 :
1950 4,151;687 1,970,358 49.0 31.0
-47.5 I
1953* ^
4,634,622 2,063,368
11.7 4.7
-44.5 1
d
Figures for 1953 are April, 1953; estimates published
by the Regional Planning Commission of the County of
Los Angeles.
155
TABLE XVII
POPULATION CHANGES OF LOS ANGELES CITY AND COUNTY
(1940 TO 1953)
1940 1950 Increase
Area
Number Per
cent
Number Per
cent
Number Per 1
cent j
County 2,875,643
100.0
4,151,687
100.0
1;366,044 49.0
City 1
,504,277
54.0 1,970,358
-47.5
466,081 31.0
Remainder
of C ounty 1,281,366
46.0
2,181,329 52.5 899;963
70.2
BREAKDOWN BY ECONOMIC AREAS
1
155,443 5.6 402,538
9.7 247;095
159.0
2 161,607 5.8 205,162
-4.9 43,555
27.0 j
3 117,617
4.2
160,167 -3.9
42,550 36.1 1
4 131,423 4.7 261,914 6.3 130,491 99.3
5
100,448 3.6
155,747
3.8
55,299 55.1 1
6,7
364,807 13.4
401,307 -9.7
36,500 10.0 !
8
133,351
4.8 -129,578 -3.1 -3,773
-2.8 '
9
151,086 5.4
162,833 -3 • 9 11,747
7.8
1 10
162,340 5.8 165,501 -4.0 3,161
1.9
11 50,653
1.8 70,289 -1.7
19,636 38.8 I
12 157,658
5.7 297,711
7.2
140,053 88.8
; 13
412,345 14.8 576,232
-13.9 163,887
39.7 i
: 14
333,243
12.0
521,659
12.6 188,416
96.5
15
78,640 2.8
178,027 4.3 99,387
126.4 !
16 254,908 9.2
426,991 10.3 172,083
67.5 1
TABLE XVII (continued)
POPULATION CHANGES OF LOS ANGELES CITY AND COUNTY
(1940 TO 1953)
156
Area
1953
Increase
1953 over 1950
1950-1953/
1940-1950 i
Number
Per
cent Number
Per
cent
(Per cent {
.increase]
County 4,634,622 100.0
482,935
11.2 35.4
City 2,063,468
-44.5
93,110
4.7
20.0
Remainder
of County 2,571,154
55.5 389,825 17.9 43.3
BREAKDOWN BY ECONOMIC AREAS
1 492,126 10.6 89,588
22.3
36.2
2
215,789 -4.7 10,627
5.2 24.4
3 175,449
-3.8 15,282
9.5 35.9
4
325,363
7.0
63,449
24.2 48.6
5
172,600
3.7 16,853
10.8
30.5
6; 7 -397,693
-8.6 —3,6l4 -0.9 ”9 • 9
8
-119,593
-2.6
-9,985 -7.7
-264.4
9 -162,671 -3.5
-162 -0.1
-1.5
10 -158,986 -3.4
-6,515 -3.9
-205.8
11 76,869 1.7
6,580 9.4
33.5
12 344,482 7.4
46,771 15.7
33.4
13 611,865
-13.2
35,633
6.2 21.8
14 545,488 -11.8
23,829 4.6
12.7
15 281,239
6.1 103,212 58.0 104.0
16 510,892 11.0
83,901 19.6
48.7
157
TABLE XVIII
DENSITY OF THE POPULATION OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY (1940 TO 1953)
1 Area
Number
square
miles
Number
of
acres
1940
Persons per:
1950
Persons per:
1953
Persons per:
Acre Sq. mile Acre Sq. mile Acre Sq. mile
Los Angelas County 4,083 2,614,066 1.1 684 1.6 1,021 1.8
1,137
Los Angeles City
453
289,920
5.3 3,499
6.8 4,350
7.1
4,5$0
Remainder of County 3; 630 2,325,146
0.5
354 0.9
602 1.1 708
BREAKDOWN BY ECONOMIC AREAS
1 232 148,221 1.0 670
2.7
1,732 3.3
2,120
2
51 32,665 4.9
3,170
6.3 4,030 6.6 4,230
3
42
27,173 4.3
2,800
5.9
3,820
6.5 4,180
4
263 168,087 0.8 501 1.6 996
1.9 1,228
5 31
20,156 5.0 3,240
7.7 4,985
8.6
5,575
6 and 7 41
25,393 13.5
8,360
15.7 9,815 -15.6 -9,698
8
7 3,919
34.0 19,050
-33.1 -18,511
-30.6
-17,085
9
12
7,717 19.6 12,590 21.1
13,569
-20.9 -13,556
: 10 22 14,031 11.6 7,390 11.8
7,535 -11.3 -7,235
11 19
12,632 4.0 2,662 5.6
3,695
6.1
4,045
: 12 98 61,972
2.5
1,608 4.8 3,038 5.6 3,520
: 13 78 50,646 8.2
5,295 11.5 7,385
12.2 7,840
: 14 ' 78 49,646
6.7 4,275 10.5
6,690 11.0
7,015
: 15
108 69,892 1.1
727 2.5
1,650 4.0
2,601
j 16 152 98,461 216 1,676
4.3 2,803 5.2 3,360
158
TABLE XIX
DWELLING UNITS IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY
(1940 TO 1953)
Area
1940 1950
Increase
1940 to 1953
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent |
County 961,541
100.0
1,442,691
100.0 481,150 50.0
City 529,261 55.0
698,039
-48.4 168,728 32.0 j
Remainder
of County 432,280 45.0 744,652 51.6 312,372 71.8
BREAKDOWN BY ECONOMIC AREAS
1
49,971 5.2 131,645
9.0 81,674 163.4 j
2 54,407 5.7 73,997
-5.0 19,590 36.0
; 3
40,836
4.3 56,469 -3.9 15,633 38.3 i
: . 4 41,757 4.3
85,878 5.8 44,121
105.7 1
5
32,764 3.4 53,030
3-7
20,266
61.9 1
6,7
113,146 11.8 124,456 -8.5 11,310
11.0
8 58,374 6.1 56,896
-3.9
-1,478 -2.5 ^
9 58,153 6.1 66,486 -4.6
8,333 14.3 I
1 10
64,139 6.7
70,788
-4.9 6,649 10.4
; 11 17,994 1.9
26,420 -1.8 8,426 46.8
; 12 55,411 5.8
102,175
7.0 46,764 84.4
: 13 141,631 14.7
201,825
-13.9
60,194 42.5 1
! 14 105,516 11.0 168,207
11.6 62,691
59.4
15
22,361
2.3
55,898 4.8 33,537
150.0
: 16
93,404
9.7 154,369
10.6 60,956
65.3 ,
TABLE XIX (continued)
DWELLING UNITS IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY
(1940 TO 1953)
159
Area
1953
Increase
1950 to 1953
Number Per cent Number Per cent
County 1,661,102 100.0 218,411
15.1
City 764,964 -46.0
66,925
9.6
Remainder
of County 896,138 54.0
151,486 20.3
BREAKDOWN BY ECONOMIC AREAS
1 167,384 10.1
35,739 27.1
2 80,070 -4.8
6,073
8.2
3
62,688 -3.8
6,219 10.9
4 109,038 6.6 23,160 27.0
5 59,953
—3 • 6
6,923 13.1
6,7
126,678 -7.6 2,222 1.8
8
-56,359
-3.4
-537
-I.O
9
71,672
-4.3
5,186
7.7
10
74,199 -4.5
3,411 4.8
11
29,769
-1.8
3,349 17.1
12
124,293 7.5
22,118 21.6
13 223,246 -13.4 21,421 10.1 1
14 180,751
-10.9
12,544
7.3
15 91,791 5.5 35,893
64.0
16
185,379
11.2 31,020 20.1
160
TABLE XX
PERSONS PER DWELLING UNIT IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY
(1940 TO 1953)
Area
Number of persons per dwelling unit in:
1940 1950
1953
Los Angeles County 2.90 -2.88*
-2.79
Los Angeles City 2.84 -2.82 "2.70
Remainder of County 2.98 "2.94 -2.87
BREAKDOWN BY ECONOMIC AREAS
1 3.12 -3.06 "2.94
2
2.97 "2.77
—2.69
3
2.88 -2.84 "2.80
4 3.14 -3.05 "2.98
5 .
3.06 -2.94 "2.88
6,7
3.22 3.22 "3.14
8
2.29
"2.28 "2.12
9
2.60
"2.45 -2.27
10 2.54 -2.34 -2.14
11 2.82 -2.66 "2.58
12 2.84
.2.91 "2.77
13 2.91
-2.86 "2.74
14 3.16 "3.10 "3.02
15 3.52
-3.19
-3.06
16
2.73
2.76 2.76
* A minus sign indicates a decrease from preceding census
period.
161
TABLE XXI
LOS ANGELES DOWNTOWN ASSESSED VALUATION
PER FRONT FOOT FOR 1950
Third Street
2000
1500
2800
Fourth
6600
5000
7300
Fifth
8000
6000
7500
Sixth
a s
S
TJ
aS
O
U
m
1100
700
1400
street
1900
1500
4000
Street
4250
2100
3500
Street
9500
7500
12000
Seventh
6000
4000
7500
street
11400
7500
9750
Eighth
8750
4000
2200
3000
Ninth
aS
s
c d
o
U
pq
7500
3000-2600
3500
Street
4500
1800
2100
Street
162
TABLE XXI (continued)
LOS ANGELES DOWNTOWN ASSESSED VALUATION
PER.FRONT FOOT FOR 1950
Figueroa Street
1500 1100
1200 1100
1800 1400
Flower Street
2000
4 - 3
< D
2000
1500
Q )
1400
2000 4 - 3 2000
CO
Hope g Street
a
3500
< u
> 2400
2500
< D
CO
1600
3750 2750
Grand Avenue
3250
3000
4300
2750
2000
3500
Olive Street
5000
3500
5200
Hill
6000
10500
11400
Broadway
75ÔÔ
5100
2000
4 - 3
Q )
0)
U
4 ^
CO
x:
4 - 5
c
( Ü
>
< D
C O
4150
2750
4150
Street
6000
4000
32000
Broadway
756Ô
5700
2100
Spring Street
163
TABLE XXII
TOTAL RETAIL SALES FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY
(1929 TO 1952)
Year
Downtown
Los Angeles
Per cent
of total
Remainder
of County
Per cent
of total I
1929
$181,046,000 29.6 $ 287,304,000 70.4
1933
165,758,000 25.1 660,101,000
74.9
1935
205,302,000 21.8 942,103,000 78.2
1939
223,071,000 17.0 1,314,450,000 83.0
1948 505,240,000 11.2 4,512,261,000 88.8
1952 500,000,000 8.6 5,830,000,000 91.4
Source: Bureau of the Census, United States Department
of Commerce; Research Department, Security-First
National Bank of Los Angeles, March 19; 1952.
164
TABLE XXIII
TOTAL DEPARTMENT STORE SALES FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY
(1929 TO 1952)
Year
Downtown
Los Angeles
Per cent
of total
Rest of
County
Per cent
of total
1929 106,761* 75.0 35,527
25.0
1939
77,090 54.0
65,633
46.0
1948 181,003
38.1 294,104
6 1.9
ESTIMATED
1949
164,300
37.7
271,800"
62.3
1950
167,100 3 6 .4 291,500 63.6
1951
166,300
35.3
305,400
64.7
1952
156,400
29.9**
366,700 70.1**
* In millions of dollars.
** Per cent of decrease in Downtown Los Angeles -- 45.1;
per cent of increase in rest of County — 45.1.
Source: Research Department, Security-First National Bank
of Los Angeles, March 20, 1952.
OJ
m
< j \
r —I
g
o n
ON
I—I
ë
o
0
1
§
C O
s
0:
g
e3
H
G O
2
ë
I
;
g
o
o
o
o
o
o
O
O
O
O
o
o
o
o
o
o
O
o
165
o o o O O o o o o P
4 - 3
• \ # \ • X
Ü
Ü o c r \ V O in o l >- in o n 0
i H 3
c d O
V O
0-
1 — 1
V O
in
r H
1 — 1
< M
0 0
r H
C O
in
o
in
in
- = j *
o n
O J
Ü
- P O
* % • N • % * \ • s
u
o i H V O o n 0 “ O V in 0- in b- 0
E - » ^
O
0 0
0 0
- s j"
r— 1
C h
is -
0 0
o n
o 1 — i
A -
G \
V O
0 0
o\
O J
O
a
0
P fH
d C d
. 1 — i o T o n o n m o n o n - = 1 “
*
H e (
>
• H
P
C d
i H
0
0 )
0
A
0
b O
0 ) P 0 0 V O O J 0- o n o\ ov 0- 0 0 u d
Ü o
p m I — 1 o n o n o\ c A c A < D r H
<
( D < P
fL , O
C V J o n - = j- - = j " A " A- in in
o
0 0
O J
0 3
A
A
O
!> i o o o o o o o o o
..
0 3 P o o o o o o o o o C Q d
o S o o o o o o o o o 0 c d
f - q 5 • \ • % • % . » • X * x
r H m
o fH C O V O o n o o m o n 0
( p o o n in H o C T \ o n 0 0 o n G O b O • I — 1
G o n o n in 0 0 O J o O N V O Ü o c d
0 3 * \ • V • X • X • X
d
P 0 o\ i — 1 0 0 o i H in in I — 1 o n 0 0 o
C Q r * H o V O o 0 0 0 0 o - = d * O J 0 0 M O J A
0 0
P C : b O
O J o n O J V O 0- 0 0 o o
A
P
C d
c :
<
p 1 — i
Ü c d
c H r H 1 — 1 1 — I 1 — 1 C \ J O J
* (
» 1
Ü > >
S P
O C
p p
P o
2 O
O
S
p
0 3
d
A
a
1
0 P C V J • = ! ■ 0 0 o n D - ( H r H o n ( M A w
Ü O 0 p
p
V O 0 0 V O V O O O O o v 0 0 C J i H A
p
0 < p
p 4 O
w
o- V O in m in in in - = J * • H 0
b O
0 s q
m ^
c d
0 0 3
P o
d
P
Ü
0
C O
0 o o o o o o o o o o A P
C i H o o o o o o o o o 0 d
S 0 o o o o o o o o o x J A 0
o b o
• V * % • X # x
o 5
P c o\ r H O J i H O J o O - o o • A p •
c : < O J V O r H o\ in O J O J in O J O P d O J
s O J V O 0 0 in in 0 0 in 0 3 C d in
O 0 3
• X • \ • X
O VP 0 a c T v
A o C \ J in - = d " V O t— o tH ■ = t o n t H C P 0 A
A I > - 0 0 0 0 o O J 1 — 1 in v o Z j - 0 .A
vo 0- in o\ E > - 0 0 o\ O V o E :
O * H A d
- < e - rH 1 — 1 i H r H r H tH rH
*
o n u
0 0
0 a 0 3
Ü c d
p 0 0
> P
• H Ü
A P 5 Z !
O c d * H
O 0
d A
c d e
0 0
w >
0 o
A Is ;
P A - o\ . = J * in 0 0 o\ O 1 —1 < M A
• •
c d o n o n in in in 0 3 0 A 0
0 CT\ o\ O v o\ o\ o\ o v o\ " = < o o
1 — 1 1 — 1 rH rH 1 — t 1 — 1 1 — 1 iH tH
* * '
H e i
d
P
O
C O
' t o :
166
TABLE XXV
POPULATIONSTATISTICS: ACOMPARISONOFSELECTEDSECTIONSOFCENTRAL DISTRICTS WITH EOS
ANGELES COUNTY AND CITY (1950)
N u m e r 1 c a 1
Percentage
I Item
Los Angeles
County
Los Angeles
City
West
lake
Ambas
sador County City
West
lake
Ambas
sador
POPULATION:
Total 4,151,687 1,970,358
34,733 58,139
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Male 2,003,814 943,698
16,159
23,922 48.2 47.8 46.6 41.2
Female 2,147,873
1,026,660 18,574 34,217
51.8 52.2 53.4 5#.8
White 3,877,944 1,758,773 34,278
57,667 92.3 89.3 98.9 9^.2
Nonfwhite 319,691 211,585 455
472
7.7
10.7 1.1 p.8
AGES : I
0 to 9 716,007 306,443 1,321 3,485 17.3
15.6 3.8 6.0
10 to 19 454,745
150,882 1,102 3,154 10.9
7.8 3.2 5.4
20 to 49 1,949,368 988,051 16,172 27,310 46.9
50.2 46.5 47.0
50 and over 1,031,567
522,982 16,138 24,190
24.9
26.4 46.5 41.6
EDUCATION:
Median school years completed 12.0
FAMILY STATUS:
12.0 11.8 12.4
Single, widowed, divorced 1,051,674 563,640 18,095
26,507 25.3
28.6 52.2 45.6
Married couples
1,027,605 472,160
6,505 12,455
24.8 24.0 18.8 21.4
Families 1,148,930 541,860 7,930 16,055 27.6
27.5
22.8 27.6
Unrelated Individuals 436,700 267,600
16,925 16,915 10.5
13.6 48.8
29.1
HOUSEHOLD MAKE-UP:
Number of households 1,369,936 665,752 16,111 24,916
— m m — # — — — m m
Persons per household 2.92 2.82
1.71
2.24 --
167
TABLE XXV (continued)
1 POPULATIONSTATE
i i
5TICS : A COMPARISON OE S]
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
SLECTEDSI
AND CITY
:CTIONS OF
(1950)
CENTRAL DISTRIi WITH■
Numeric a 1 Percentage
Item Los Angeles
County
Los Angeles
City
Wes t—
lake
Ambas
sador County City
West
lake
Ambas
sador
OCCUPATIONAL GROUPINGS:
1 i
Clerical-Sales
397,773
207,458
6,547 10,851
9.6 10.5
18.9 18I7
Operatives
282,315
134,104 2,414 2,524 6.8 6.8 7.0 4i2
Craftsmen
253,509
108,441
1,751
2,106 6.1
5.5 5.1
3:6
Managers, Officials,
Proprietors 205,209
99,103 1,745 4,405 , 5.0 5.0 7.0
Professional, Technical 199,801 101,231 2,087 4,754 4.8
5.1
6.0 8|2
INCOME:
’ Median income in dollars
for families and unre
lated individuals 3,118
2,789 1,965 2,775
100.0
7.7 36.9 10,9
POPULATION DENSITY:
Total square miles 4,083 453
1.26 3.40
Persons per square mile 1,021 4,350 27,598 17,100 — — —
— m#
Total number of acres 2,614,066 289,920
803.5 2177.7
—
( Persons per acre
1
1.6 6.8 43.2
26.7
168
TABLE XXVI
COMPARISON OF THE ASSESSED VALUES OF LAND ZONED R-3,
R-4, AND R-5.IN THE WESTLAKE AND AMBASSADOR AREAS
(LOS ANGELES,,1940 AND 1953)
(values per square foot)
Item
Total for
two
districts
Westlake
district
Ambassador |
district
Number of lots
Total number of square
feet
Average square feet
per lot
1,585
11,927,702
7,525.37
525
3,882,836
7,381.82
1,059
8,044,866 !
7,596.65
IN 1940
Total assessed value* $3,544,348 $1,218,822 $2,325,526 !
Average assessed
value per lot 2,236 2,310 2,196 :
Average assessed value
per square foot 0.2972
0.3139 0.2891
IN 1953
Total assessed value*
$3,439,313 $1,245,226 $2,194,087 1
Average assessed
value per lot 2,170 2,366 2,072
Average assessed value,
per square foot 0.2884 0.3207 0.2727
PERCENTAGE CHANGE
Change in assessed
value of land,
1940 to 1953 -2.96# +2.17# -5.65#
* Total assessed value of land for Los Angeles County:
1940: $2,485,980,320
1953: $6,663,474,160
Percentage of Increase: 168.O per cent.
169
TABLE XXVII
ESTIMATED POPULATION AND DWELLING UNITS FOR I960:
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
Item
A. County L.A. City Ambas- West-;
sador lake
Estimated population
for i960 5
,568,587 2,316,532 70,285 39,989i
Numerical increase
over 1953
Percentage increase
over 1953
933,965
20.2
253,064
12.3
12,146 5,256i
20.9 15.1 I
Additional dwelling
units needed over
next seven years
319,851 89,739
5,422 3,074 :
Multiple residences
Single family units
118,025
201,826
33,652
56,807
5,422 3,074
POPULATION ESTIMATES FOR I96O FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY
Source ' Estimate
Security-First National Bank of Los Angeles
Metropolitan Water District (May 1931)
;Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce
Bos Angeles City Planning Commission*
Actual 1850-1953 average rate projected
Actual 19IO-I95O average rate projected
Actual I94O-I95O average rate projected
Actual I94O-I953 average rate projected
Actual 195O-I953 average rate projected
Popular belief
5.500.000 !
5.323.000 !
5.600.000 i
6,131,143 !
4,949,356 :
5,272,945
5,517,731
5,630,225 1
5,761,468
6,000,000 I
Total of ten estimates 55,685,868 1
Average of ten estimates for i960
5,568,587
* Based on the estimate given by Breivogel of 2,500,000
in the City of Los Angeles for I960.
Uaiifersirr o t

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This is a case study of a county which is one of the country's largest and richest. It is an on-the-spot accounting and a bringing up-to-date. At the same time, it uses historical analysis, some graphic presentations and comparisons, and some looking forward. Thus, themethod of study is both general and particular.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

A study of the transient boy in Los Angeles County in 1939

PDF

A study of juvenile gangs in the Hollenbeck area of East Los Angeles

PDF

Characteristics of Filipino social organizations in Los Angeles

PDF

The French in Los Angeles: A study of a transplanted culture

PDF

An analytical study of the physical distribution of population in Los Angeles County, 1946-1956

PDF

An analysis of garment manufacturing in the Los Angeles area

PDF

Adjustment of large downtown and boulevard churches in Los Angeles to socio-cultural factors in the community

PDF

Changing socio-cultural patterns of the Chinese community in Los Angeles

PDF

Family care program: A descriptive study of the family care program at the Neuropsychiatric Hospital, Veterans Administration Center, Los Angeles

PDF

From “squatters” to citizens? Slum dwellers, developers, land sharing and power in Phnom Penh, Cambodia

PDF

Suburban Political Behavior In Los Angeles County, California

PDF

Sociological survey of Main Street, Los Angeles, California

PDF

A sociological study of public opinion concerning certain police practices in Los Angeles

PDF

The significance of zones and boundaries in the urban community with special reference to the Los Angeles Area

PDF

The unattached Negro woman on relief: A study of fifty unattached Negro women on relief in the Compton district office of the State Relief Administration of California in Los Angeles

PDF

Concrete utopia: the development of roads and freeways in Los Angeles, 1910-1950

PDF

Special library collections in the Southern California area as an approach to historical studies

PDF

The Korean community in Los Angeles County

PDF

The vicious cycle of inactivity, obesity, and metabolic health consequences in at-risk pediatric populations

PDF

Optical properties of urban runoff and its effect on the coastal phytoplankton community

Asset Metadata

Creator Davis, Paul (author)

Core Title Population pressure and its effect on the land use pattern and land valuations in Los Angeles County from 1940 to 1953

School Department of Finance

Degree Master of Science

Degree Program Real Estate

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag agricultural,Climate,Commercial,Downtown,highways,Industrial,non-urban,OAI-PMH Harvest,Population,Residential,retail sales,rural,Social Sciences,Streets,Suburbs,topography,Urban,Vacant lands

Place Name bays: Santa Monica Bay (geographic subject), Beverly Hills (city or populated place), California (states), Compton (city or populated place), Glendale (city or populated place), Hollywood (city or populated place), Inglewood (city or populated place), Los Angeles (city or populated place), Los Angeles (counties), Norwalk (city or populated place), Pasadena (city or populated place), Pomona (city or populated place), San Fernando Valley (city or populated place), San Gabriel (city or populated place), USA (countries), Whittier (city or populated place), Wilshire Boulevard (roadway)

Format application/pdf (imt), x, 169 leaves : ill. ; 29 cm. (aacr2)

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Advisor Martin, G. Preston (committee chair), Acolen, Donald (committee member), Libby, Paul (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m11

Unique identifier UC11313037

Identifier EP65352.pdf (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c39-380299 (legacy record id),usctheses-m11 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier EP65352.pdf

Dmrecord 380299

Document Type Thesis

Format application/pdf (imt),x, 169 leaves : ill. ; 29 cm. (aacr2)

Rights Davis, Paul

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA