The other day I read an article announcing that the beloved UCLA hangout bar, Westwood Brewing Company (aka: BrewCo), would be closing this summer; to be replaced by a chain seafood restaurant.  The loss of this college-age oriented hangout is yet another loss for the student population in Westwood, and an example of the constant struggle for identity of this urban village between the wealthy homeowners and student population.  What urban planners have always been willing to argue is that street-level retail and restaurants are essential.  But what they are less likely, though arguably always thinking, is that neighborhoods need bars.  It’s time we get over our reservations and embrace the benefits and necessity of a neighborhood bar in urban planning and development.

As the cities of America continue to see increases in population and popularity, they are moving away from the old paradigm of the mid-20^th Century where people worked in downtowns but consume goods in the closer-to-home periphery.   Density is bringing people closer to the urban core and the lower costs of transportation allow residents to fulfill their needs and preferences locally.  The real estate blog Movoto recently released a survey showing the 10 Most Exciting Cities in America, which takes into account the density of experiences available, including bars per square foot, and further evidence of an increasing market demand.

The problem that has traditionally followed bars has been the “nuisance” complaint – that bars attract a large group of people who will consume alcohol (obviously) and belligerently leave the bar, cause loud noise, litter, loiter, and attract crime.  This complaint seems to be found among existing homeowners, those who are older, and the more conservative, while the opposite seems to be true among new residents regardless of age.  As the naysayers are usually the ones who show up at public meetings, this severely hinders the ability to create a complete neighborhood with a local bar (more on the naysayers in a future post on NIMBYs).  While the nuisance complaint can be true to a limited extent (there will always be that obnoxious douche at a bar), this argument tends to overshadow the positive effects bars have on a neighborhood.

Bars are social gathering spaces like parks

Think of the most entertaining and vibrant neighborhood or street you’ve visited over the years.  Most likely, there were bars in or on them.  Bars are these great places in neighborhoods that serve as social gathering spaces in a similar way that one would expect from a park.  Michael Hickey, a community development consultant, does a good job explaining why a bars inclusion is an essential part to a vibrant neighborhood: a “third-space”.

“The vaunted ‘third space’ isn’t home, and isn’t work – it’s more like the living room of society at large. It’s a place where you are neither family nor co-worker, and yet where the values, interests, gossip, complaints and inspirations of these two other spheres intersect. It’s a place at least one step removed from the structures of work and home, more random, and yet familiar enough to breed a sense of identity and connection. It’s a place of both possibility and comfort, where the unexpected and the mundane transcend and mingle.

And nine times out of ten, it’s a bar.”

As Hickey points out, bars are great places of social gathering that bring people out of their apartments or jobs and let them simply “hang out”.  We meet friends and co-workers, but we also meet our neighbors.  We build parks for this same reason and we expect this from a café, but it would be wrong to assume that those PG rated establishments are the only spaces for such social interaction.  Instead of an overly-priced cup of coffee, a decent neighborhood bar offers something for all income levels.  While we can no doubt throw down a lot of money at a bar on a good (or bad) day, a casual neighborhood bar is a relatively inexpensive experience.  Sometimes you just want to get away for a beer and burger.

Vibrant and safer streets

The idea of bars making streets safer seems incredibly odd to many people.  But it can be easily true.  First, I must concede that it is not a blanket truth for all bars and entirely depends on context of the neighborhood.  But bars can definitely make a street safer.  The reason is that it does one thing really well: it brings people to a street and provides the ever lauded “eyes on the street”.  The argument against this depends entirely on the assumption that ALL patrons of bars are completely drunk, which is unrealistic.  Seriously, do you get wasted every time you go to a bar?  (If you answered yes, please click here.)

When a bar is great and popular, you also have brought in a constant stream of consumers to your retail street.  On weekends in West Hollywood, California (I live here), some bars open in the morning for brunches, others in the afternoon for sporting events, and the rest at their usual evening times.  The point is that when they open, people begin to walk back and forth between the bars on Santa Monica Blvd. throughout the city. As they move they visit local shops, stop and eat at local restaurants, or relax at local parks.  The weekend becomes an inclusive local experience, triggered by this third-space that serves as a “home-base” for the outing.  Sure, let’s meet up for lunch and then go to a bar and hangout for a bit.

The above is also evidence we need to bring bars into the context of the complete neighborhood – a place where one can achieve the bulk of their activities within walking distance or short transit ride from their home.  Not only does this mean that we want to shop and eat near our residence, but we also want the ability to go out – to spend good times with friends and enjoy a beer or cocktail if we want; to find a bar to watch the game.  When we don’t have a bar nearby, we lack that special place where we can simply mix, mingle, and drink.  Without it, we are forced to find an alternative away from our neighborhood, which brings the question of drunk driving.

When we lack the neighborhood bar, we begin to force those who seek them out to find them outside of the neighborhood.  And unless you live in New York or San Francisco (both cities have a great collection of bars, FYI), you will likely end up driving to that bar and, thus, be forced to drive back home after drinking.

Multiple bars

Finally, there is a need for, not only one neighborhood bar, but multiple bars.  The reason is due to market competition and meeting all consumer preferences.   When there is only one bar, that place has little incentive to be the best bar in the neighborhood or on the street.  If you want to go to a bar near home, you really only have this one choice (or you go somewhere else if you don’t like that choice).  I’m sure we can all think of a place we’ve lived that had only one mediocre bar that we reluctantly patroned.  Having multiple bars forces each bar to improve the quality of their experience by attracting new customers and their competitors customers – pure market economics.  The other part has to do with trying to meet the preferences of everyone: not all residents may want to spend time at a sports bar.  Some may want a pool table and darts.  Others may want a bar that serves food.  Others may want a nicer cocktail than the ones the pub is serving.  Providing options allows residents of every stripe to enjoy these third-spaces and meet up with neighbors with similar preferences.  And when there are multiple bars spread throughout the street or neighborhood you allow for the movement between bars, thus turning the experience of “going out” more inclusive to the rest of the storefronts who wish to remain open and take advantage.

Before we start to think that this is a “Creative Class” argument, I want to say it is not.  Richard Florida’s creative class argument is flawed because it focuses on a cultivating specific demographic group as the cause of effect, rather than on the characteristics of the urban environment to meet overall demographic needs and preferences (expect a post later in the series explaining why planners think Richard Florida is wrong).  Nevertheless, the argument for why planners need to publicly embrace bars is focused on providing space for social interaction while simultaneously creating vibrant and, arguably, safer streets.  It’s time we begin to see the bar, not simply as an amenity, but almost as an essential requirement to complete the cohesiveness of a neighborhood.

This is the 2nd post in the series: Planning Confidential: Everything you thought about planning is true.  Click the link for an index of other Planning Confidential posts.

Roobs is an urban planner in Los Angeles.  He received his Master’s in Urban & Regional Planning from UCLA with concentrations in Urban Design & Transportation.  He received his Bachelors from UC Berkeley in Legal Studies and Sociology.

SimCity.  Possibly the most popular computer game among urban planners.  You get to put roads where you want them.  Transit where you want it.  Build a high-rise, high-density core, and there’s not a NIMBY in site.  Or at least none that you can’t simply bulldoze out of the way.  Yes, every urban planner loves SimCity.  Except for the ones that don’t.

It was about a year ago or so when I first read a planning-related article about the popular city simulation game.  The article was more of an attack on the game being perceived as a “urban planning” simulation, citing how it is not at all realistic to what planners do and potential graduate students in planning should avoid it (if I could find it I would add the link, but I can’t).  My response: of course it’s not realistic.  It’s a computer game!  But here’s why SimCity is better at planning than the haters.

SimCity just doesn’t care

Despite what the author of the aforementioned article may think, SimCity is the favorite computer game of most urban planners and planning graduate students.  It’s not because it’s a realistic depiction of their aspiring or current careers,  but more so because it’s cathartic.  In SimCity, as the Mayor (aka: Planning God), you have absolute dictatorial control over your city where your decisions are the correct ones.  It’s a world where buildings rise and fall at your arbitrary whim.  Neighbors don’t want a new commercial center downtown?  Screw those NIMBYs and just demolish their buildings and put a park in their place to increase your commercial center’s land value.  What planner wouldn’t want to take a bulldozer to their most ardent development hecklers?  You need a city council approval to build a new airport?  Fuck that noise.  I’m just going to plop one right here next to my high-speed rail station.  Done.  Don’t you think LAX would love to simply plop a new and longer runway right over Westchester?  That would shut them up.  And CEQA?  What CEQA?  Here’s a new waste treatment plant right next to the water pump.  Boom.  Yea, SimCity is an awesome planner.

SimCity rocks GIS

The latest installment of SimCity, even with all of its initial launch bugs, is by far one of the most sophisticated urban planning simulations created.  It’s ability to create traffic agent behavior is pretty amazing: with each agent having performance characteristics, such as speed, acceleration, and deceleration.  The agents know when they need to use the appropriate turn lanes (TURN LANES!) and U-turns, and the worker agents successfully simulate morning and evening rush hour.  Let’s be honest, SimCity is far better at traffic simulation than anything you’ve done in your cubical.  When was the last time you worked in a network analysis in your routine?  Oh, I’m sorry, you’re too busy reviewing plans for a resident to increase his privacy hedge.

SimCity is every grad schools dream applicant

The author also had some choice advice for potential planning students; suggesting there are two columns in which planning schools put student applications: one with applications that reference SimCity and another with those that don’t, with the former being the proverbial throw-away pile. First of all, I referenced SimCity in my application for graduate school at UCLA and I got in to their program.  So if this is the author’s personal theory I can shoot holes in it.

Second, SimCity offers many great educational experiences to the young planner, such as land use, economics, employment/unemployment, and even environmentalism.  But more importantly, it introduces the average person, especially  young kids and teenagers, to the concept of urban planning – a field that is so obscure to them that many don’t even know it’s a professional field.  What planning program wouldn’t want that?  For the author to suggest the game is completely devoid of educational and practical value is just another example of annoyingly arrogant “professional” planners throwing their beloved game under the bus.  If I hear another high and mighty planner come and tell me that “SimCity isn’t a realistic” or some type of downer to it’s educational value: Who do you think you are?  It’s not like you came out of your mother’s womb drawing street maps on an Etch-A-Sketch or master planning your room.  In fact, you wanted to be a lawyer, or a police detective, or porn fluffer when you were a kid.  You didn’t know what planning was until you started playing SimCity so stop throwing shade, bitch.

SimCity would own a community meeting

In the same vein as the previous point, it’s not the game’s fault (emphasis on GAME), if people take this game and think it portrays an exact replica solution to real world problems, such as single use zoning (i.e., sprawl).  It’s not the game’s fault you, in all your wisdom, can’t convince the community of the benefits of mixed-use zoning or form-based codes.  In fact, the game does a better job at that as well.  SimCity teaches generation after generation the basic principles of urban planning.

For example, you run out of space but your firms and factories say they need more workers?  You can’t build out more, so you need to build up.  You need to increase the capacity of adjacent roads to allow the buildings to grow in height and increase the number of residents.  This isn’t exactly how it works in real life (fucking NIMBYs), but the concept of increasing density as a way to increase housing supply and avoid continued sprawl is a fundamental concept in modern planning.  And now they know that even if they don’t know it’s planning.

In the end, SimCity is awesome and there are reasons why urban planners love it.  Sure, there’s the cathartic aspect of it, but it is also a great learning tool masked in good times.  Many of today’s young urban planners can trace the genesis of their interest in planning to this game.  As they say in politics, “dance with the one that brought you.”  As for the haters, go back to reviewing that privacy hedge application.

This is the 1st post in the series: Planning Confidential: Everything you thought about planning is true.  Click the link for an index of other Planning Confidential posts.

Roobs is an urban planner in Los Angeles.  He received his Master’s in Urban & Regional Planning from UCLA with concentrations in Urban Design & Transportation.  He received his Bachelors from UC Berkeley in Legal Studies and Sociology.

Welcome to my new series entitled: Planning Confidential: Everything You Thought About Planning is True.  The title is a play on the great book by Anthony Bourdain: Kitchen Confidential: Adventures in the Culinary Underbelly.  Unlike Bourdain, I lack the years of experience to create a truly entertaining “tell all” book.  However, like Bourdain, I have plenty of opinions and a willingness to share them.  Over the next few posts under this parent series, I will explore some of my favorite topics in the planning and development field.  Some may be serious.  Some may be more playful.  But it I hope it will all be fun.  For me, at least.

If you don’t like it then I’m sure there’s a permit application you could be approving right now.

Post Index:

1) 4 Reasons SimCity is Better Than You

2) Time to Embrace the Neighborhood Bar

SF Muni Trolley Bus

When I was at UCLA for my urban planning master’s, one of my professors told us that whenever you are provided with a potential solution, you have to ask if that solution solves the problem you set out to solve.  A post by Alexander Friedman on Streetsblog LA makes a decent argument to bring back trolley buses – electric buses powered by overhead wires – to Los Angeles as a way to provide a temporary fix to LA’s transit woes.  While I have no problem with trolley buses given their great environmental benefits and long-term savings, I believe Mr. Freidman overestimates the effect trolley buses have on transit ridership and their benefits to overall transit service.  In short, while trolley buses are filled with numerous benefits as described in Mr. Friedman’s op-ed, they would not solve the underlying problem he set out to solve, which is poor transit service.

Mr. Friedman focuses on several arguments in favor of trolley buses:

• Long-term cost – trolley buses require more up-front capital for purchase, but are cheaper to operate in the long-term.
• Energy efficiency – they run on electricity provided by overhead wires.
• Pollution free – they are electric buses.
• Quiet operation – buses are quiet when operating compared to diesel, CNG, or gas buses.
• Technologically advanced and aesthetically pleasing – they look good and people will ride them because they look good.
• Wiring creates a sense of permanence – The wires serve similar function as rail tracks, which is beneficial to economic development.
• Overhead wiring equates reliable transit – buses can’t deviate so you know it’s there.
• Trolley buses have lowest operating cost compared to LRT, streetcars, subway, or regular buses.
• Trolley buses last longer than regular buses.
• Maintenance of trolley buses Is far less than gas, diesel, or CNG buses.

Mr. Friedman then goes into several Myths v. Facts of trolley buses and why we need them.  They are, for the most part, perfectly fine points so I’m not going to spend time going over all of them.  But, again, the issue here is over transit service and whether or not trolley buses can actually improve service compared to their non-electric counterparts.  The answer is no.

Transit Access vs. Service

First, let’s actually look at the issue of overall bus transit in Los Angeles.  A Brooking’s study found that the LA metro area actually had great transit coverage, with about 96% of metro workers having access to transit (usually a bus).  I even did a study while at UCLA that came to a similar conclusion.   The issue in this study (as well as mine) that helps explain the poor ridership in LA is that, while LA Metro covers 96% of workers, it only provides access to 26% of the jobs.  So regardless of the type of bus available to you, why get on if it can’t get you to where you are going?  Therefore, a trolley bus that still doesn’t get you to your jobs is not going to improve ridership.

Trolley Bus vs. Traditional Bus

Second, in order for trolley buses to be as much of a game changer as Friedman argues they will, they need to be dramatically different from traditional buses.  But the fact is that they are not.  Trolley buses look and feel very much like traditional buses and there should be no illusion that they differ in those respects from regular buses.  It is true that you can find examples of really “cool” looking trolley buses, but it is no less true that you can find really “cool” looking traditional buses.  Aesthetics is no reason to invest in one over another alone.  I, for one, think that LA Metro’s new fleet of buses are actually much more attractive than San Francisco Muni’s.

New SF Muni Articulated Trolley Bus

New LA Metro Articulated Bus

Electricity Powered by Coal

Further, the concept of 100% pollution free is a bit of a misconception, though to no fault of Friedman.  This is because electricity is generated from somewhere.  Sure, the bus itself may not be emitting pollutants, but that electricity is probably being generated from a coal power plant.

Economic Benefits of Stops / Stations

Finally, the economic benefit they provide is, I believe, untrue.  This I will preface by saying I need more data on this and it is a topic of research I would like to continue.  But it is my belief that it is not the rail (or wire in this case) that really spurs development.  It is actually the stops.  Having worked with some developers myself, most have confided in me that they actually care very little about the mode of transportation that is used.  They do like the idea of permanence but they go more for the “place” that is created by an LRT stop/station then they are by the rail itself.  Similar, the trolley bus wire may be akin to rail in that once it’s placed it is difficult to move (though much easier than rail), but it is how stops are designed that really brings the development dollars in.  And stop design is independent of any form of power the bus receives.

Urban Form Needs to Support Transit

Now I want to talk about San Francisco.  Mr. Friedman uses my favorite City by the Bay’s Muni service as an example for many of his points, such as people in SF ride the bus because it is a trolley bus and because they are cool.  However, there are several reasons why this is a bad comparison.

First, San Francisco’s urban form is set up very differently from Los Angeles.  Friedman’s assertion for success of the trolley bus assumes it’s the bus, not the urban form, which is the reason. This is a mistake.  People in San Francisco are not riding the bus in droves because it is a trolley bus.  They are riding the bus because it’s transit within urban corridors that are already set up for transit of any kind to succeed.

For example, Market Street in San Francisco is a dense urban corridor that allows for many riders to have access to transit from their home and work.  On Market, there are not only trolley buses, but regular CNG buses, and two subways (BART and Muni Rail).  More to the point, the CNG buses that travel on Market Street as well as the many other corridors of San Francisco are as full as the trolley buses.  Similarly, in Los Angeles, the Wilshire Corridor with its complete dearth of overhead wiring has some of the highest bus ridership in the country with over 41,000 daily weekday riders on the 720 in 2012.  This is comparable to some of the busiest routes in New York City for the same year. This is because the Wilshire Corridor is actually an ideal urban form for transit with its great density of jobs and workers.  So any transit, whether, the Purple Line extension, a BRT lane, or trolley bus, will enjoy high ridership.

If a trolley bus was installed on, say, Van Nuys Blvd. in the San Fernando Valley, it would likely see very little difference in ridership compared to traditional buses.  This is because Van Nuys Blvd., whether it has a trolley bus with overhead wiring or not, does not have the urban form or population density to support a dramatic increase, as well as the issue of whether or not it can get you to where you want to go (see Brooking’s study above).  So if we want to see a trolley bus in LA, you would still need to identify the appropriate corridor that could support transit, but this would be no different than any other transit vehicle.

San Franciscans Love to Hate Muni

Second, Friedman talks often about how people seem to love taking transit in SF.  Having spent my college years in Berkeley and working in both SF and Oakland, I can say that this is true but not in the sense that Friedman thinks.  Bay Area residents love their transit options but they are not without a GREAT DEAL of complaints (just peruse www.munidiaries.comfor a short while).  They often complain in San Francisco of poor transit service, such as full buses, infrequent service, unpredictable headways, etc.  Clearly, trolley buses are highly patroned  in SF but they do not solve their transit woes.

Focus on Operations

This leads me to my final and overall point.  Trolley buses do not actually solve the SERVICE issue of transit.  Trolley buses are useful and, in of themselves, not a bad option when looking to replace existing buses given that they can lower operating costs in the long run.  But they do not increase ridership or increase frequency of service by simply existing.  Now, there is a small argument to be made over long-term savings.  That is, if we envision the same LA Metro where all buses are trolley buses, then the overall operating costs for the fleet would be lower, thus allowing us to spend the savings on increasing quality of service.  However, this is a very weak argument for trolley buses per se.  This is because the increased quality of service came not from the trolley buses but from the increased availability of operating funds.  And this increase can come from many sources that are not trolley buses or require the up front capital costs.

Again, I have no problem with trolley buses and I feel a little bad that I am essentially taking a big dump on Mr. Friedman’s idea.  But to solve LA’s transit woes, it’s less about thinking outside the box and rather getting ourselves back in.  That is to say, large capital purchases of a new fleet of buses or even new rail projects to suburbs I think can’t support the ridership won’t solve the underlying problem of service.  LA Metro, like most transit agencies in the US, suffer from a ridiculously low operating budget.  It is this lack of resources in operations that prevent more buses/rail cars, more frequent service, shorter headways, and the like.  When we focus our attention on fully funding the service that we actually have (remember, LA’s service covers 96% of workers already), and better connecting our job centers to worker populations, then we will likely begin to see a increase in quality of transit service and ridership in LA.

Roobs is an Urban Planner in Los Angeles.  He received his Master’s in Urban & Regional Planning from UCLA with concentrations in Urban Design & Transportation.

For the past two years, I served as the Chair of the California Young Democrats (CYD) LGBTQ Caucus.  When I began my tenure leading the board back in 2011, the caucus was named the CYD Queer Caucus.  One of my first acts as Chair back in 2011 was to rename the caucus.  Originally, I intended the name to be changed to simply the CYD LGBT Caucus.  But surprisingly, there was a backlash among caucus members.  Not necessarily at the renaming as a goal, but the complete drop of the “Q” or Queer.  Ultimately, I compromised to include the Q in the acronym.  But I still think this is the wrong way for a political caucus or an activist group to go.  Here is why I don’t like to include the word “Queer”.

Preface

Before I begin, I understand that many people DO identify as queer and hold passionate views on this identity.  I respect the use of the word queer by individuals and believe that everyone has the right to explore their sexuality in a manner that is safe and appropriate to them.  I also hold no hesitance to use the term due to its previous use as a homophobic slur, which is more prevalent among the older generations of the community.  However, this post is intended to focus on the use of the term by organizations whose purpose is to represent a larger group.

What does “queer” actually mean?

When we were meeting with members to vote on this change, the discussion became moderately heated and somewhat argumentative.  I finally asked someone to define to me what “queer” actually meant.  Here is a paraphrase of what I remember as this member’s description

Queer is a term used to describe individuals, usually younger, who are exploring or unsure about their sexuality and do not wish to be labeled as either lesbian, gay, or bisexual.

Other definitions of queer are much more broad, using queer to encompass all LGBT identifying individuals, as well as many others (pansexual, omnisexual, genderqueer, etc.), or to identify a movement that seeks to change a binary view of sexual identity to something more fluid.

Whether you go by the first or second definition offered here, there are a few things that overlap.  First, queer is used as a term that is used very broadly.  Second, both imply a level of exploration in sexual identity.  Meaning, a man who enjoys sex with men does not identify himself as being gay or of the gay community.  Both of these present, to me, logical problems in the use of the term in political and activist organizations.

A label for those who don’t seem to like labels

When the member first gave me the definition of queer, I looked at her with someone confusion.  I asked her to repeat the definition.  I then said the following:

“So ‘queer’ is a label given to people who say they don’t like labels?”

This is not unique to those who use the term queer as I am often confused, if not annoyed, by groups who champion a view of the world where they say they don’t use labels, but are happy to label themselves and judge others for not following their non-labeled labeled view.  Or to put more humorously, think of back in the early 2000’s and the irony of thousands of high-school kids who wore a shirt reading “Independent”.

Nevertheless, this odd logic brings me to the definition of queer that suggests an exploration, especially among a younger generation.  I believe it is perfectly natural to be explorative with sexuality and recognize the need to be more open to that exploration as a society.  Whether you are young or old and are beginning to question your own sexuality, you should feel safe and free to explore that for yourself.  However, exploration means to search for something that you have not found yet.  To use a word, almost any word, to identify this stage seems inappropriate, especially among political and activist groups.

Political and activist groups exist to represent a group and push forward a set of principles.  Therefore, groups who include the term queer with that definition are giving a label – in essence, a final stage of development – to a group that is fundamentally unsure or uncommitted to that final stage.  By using or including the term queer, we are establishing a set of principles that somehow tell a group what they want or need; an agenda, so to speak.  We are telling this to a group that has yet to actually define where they are at in their sexual mobility; beginning to establish a pigeon hole to those who don’t want one.  This, to me, is arrogant and irresponsible on the part of the organizations.

Overbroad and overburdened

Some may suggest that the broad definition of the term queer is actually strength.  It encompasses everyone and embodies inclusivity.  This may be fine in colloquial speech, but as someone who grew up in a lawyer family, I find that words matter very much.  Especially when used by organizations.  To that end, I find the broad nature of the term queer to be a weakness, at least from the perspective of trying to organize or incorporate themselves into an activist or political group.  To paraphrase Plato, queer is everything, therefore it is nothing.

Queer being used to encompass all sexual identities presents, to me, another fallacy.  Those who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or even straight have already accepted the binary view of sexual identity; that is to say, they’ve picked a side.  Also, to be LGBT almost implies the now accepted belief that individuals are born gay (one I share).  Because queer, as a movement, can imply the belief in a much more fluid form of sexual identity, it begins to imply that individuals are not actually born gay but rather can chose to be attracted to same-sex individuals based on a particular preference at any given time.  This goes against a very hard fought belief that “LGBT” rights groups have been pushing for decades.  For queer to include LGBT individuals in its broad definition assigns two communities (if we accept LGBT as one community), with two fundamentally different views of sexual identity, making queer equally as arrogant and irresponsible as LGBT groups who try to bring in the Q.  And political and activist groups who use that fundamental belief that to be gay is to be born gay and include the Q are risking the dilution of the foundation of their own cause.

Concluding thoughts

Ultimately, I have little problem with individuals who identify as queer, though I may have an opinion (clearly).  But for LGBT organizations to use the term dilutes the definition of their own cause while ascribing a set of principles to a group who is not ready for them or simply doesn’t want or agree with them.  To that end, I do not believe it is appropriate for LGBT organizations to continue to use the term Queer.  It has nothing to do with a lack of acceptance of the legitimacy of “queer”, but accepting the fundamental differences between the two and ensuring young people who are exploring their sexuality are free from outside organized pressures.

Roobs is an Urban Planner in Los Angeles and served as Chair of the CYD LGBTQ Caucus from 2011 to 2013.  Roobs studied Legal Studies and Sociology at UC Berkeley, and Urban & Regional Planning at UCLA.

A couple weeks ago, my roommate had a friend over for dinner.  My roommate is getting his PhD in Public Health at UCLA and so is his friend.  The evening was fine until his friend made, what I believe, was a rather bold statement.  She believes that PhD students, once they reach “candidacy”, should not be charged tuition.  She also stated that this is normal to not charge tuition.  I was taken aback by the statement and began to probe why she felt that way.  And the probe soon turned into argument.  She eventually left with no real resolution to the topic.  I then began to research the topic on my own.  Should PhD students have to pay tuition like Master’s students and undergraduates?  Is it normal practice for the PhD students to not pay tuition?  The quick answer is no.  It is neither right nor normal.  Here is why.

Why PhD students shouldn’t have to pay tuition

First, let me briefly go over the three arguments she gave.

1)      Tuition pays for classes, not for research – Undergraduates and Master’s students should have to pay tuition because the tuition pays for their classes they are taking to receive their degree.  However, PhD students only take classes for about one or two years of their four year term.  The latter two years are spent conducting research with faculty or on their own.  Therefore, they shouldn’t be charged tuition when they reach candidacy – when they’ve completed required classwork and begin research.

2)      It’s normal practice that PhD students not pay tuition - It’s more common to find that PhD students do not have to pay tuition when they go to school.  The school usually pays them to attend and conduct research since all research is ultimately the property of the university and not the student.

3)      PhD students are conducting professional level research that the University owns and I don’t make money on. – The student is conducting high level research that they would normally be being paid a great deal of money to do if they were working in a private sector job or at a public health lab.

Why those arguments are incorrect

I should premise all these arguments with a little context that most people are probably aware.  Higher education in the United States has been increasing in cost and tuition for students and public and private universities has increased, though most heavily felt at public universities.   Tuition at the UC level in California has increased from about $4,000 in the year 2000 to about $12,000 in the year 2011.  The reason is due to constantly decreasing support from the state government, who has slashed billions of dollars from the UC’s budget.  (For a good read on the decline of CA public higher education, click here).  Having said all this, you could begin to say that, even if we believed her arguments, we are no longer in a place where she can no longer get away without paying tuition for her PhD.  But that would still be incorrect.

Argument – Tuition is for classroom study, not research.

Reality – Tuition pays for more than just classes.

I found the belief that tuition pays for only classes – meaning being taught by a professor in a classroom setting – to be a common thought among both graduate students and undergraduates.  But this simplifies what “classes” actually mean.  Tuition does pay for those types of facilities, but it also helps pay for the professor’s salaries, facilities (including research facilities), equipment, operations, and financial aid.  (UC Systemwide Tuition & Fees, UC Budget Basics)  In essence, tuition (whether you think it’s high or not), pays for the basic operations of the university, which does include the class an undergraduate takes, but also the research equipment a PhD student is utilizing in the lab, a lab that tuition also helped pay for.

Argument – Well, then I should be charged only a reduced tuition since I’m not using classes anymore. Most universities do this.

Reality – A reduced tuition, just like the idea of no tuition, is really a full tuition that you simply don’t know you are paying for.

The idea of a reduced tuition is better than no tuition in my mind, since you are contributing to the pool of funds that serves everyone on campus.  But the reality is that reduced or no tuition is essentially an accounting trick.  Schools that usually have no tuition for the last two years of a PhD program either have much higher tuition for the first two years, or receive funding from other sources to fill the same void that would normally be filled by your tuition payment.  So while you are not necessarily paying for tuition in the sense you didn’t need to go and find a loan, that money is still being spent ON YOU through a grant by the government or university.  In other words, all PhD programs need to be funded, it just depends on how and where they get their money.

I also want to make a brief aside.  This girl is getting her PhD in Public Health at UCLA.  So if she gone to a private school for her PhD,  her total tuition and fees for a four year program would hit about $101,000 at Harvard and $95,000 at John Hopkins compared to about $88,000 at UCLA ($134,000 for non-residents).  The first two schools do what this girl would have preferred, which is to charge a tuition for the first two years of classes and either no tuition or a “reduced” tuition for the latter two years of research.  As you can see, other than UCLA still being cheaper, the costs are still high and the money is still coming in from somewhere.

Argument – I’m conducting professional level research and not being paid compared to if I were working in the private sector or for a public health lab.

Reality – You do not have the required degree to be doing those jobs. This is why you are in school.

Let’s ignore that this argument is hardly unique to PhD students since most grad students could be making more money had they stayed working.  If this girl already had a PhD in Public Health, then yes.  She could be making over $100,000 per year in a job.  However, she doesn’t. And the reason why she doesn’t is because she doesn’t have a PhD yet.  So this is a rather moot argument.  If she had only a Masters or a Bachelor’s degree, her salary drops significantly to about $50k to $75k per year, depending on the job, but also has limit in growth opportunities.

Concluding thoughts

The ultimate point I’m trying to make here is that there is no logical reason why a PhD student should not be charged tuition.  You can argue that the student should not have to front that money, but the idea that PhD research or “tradition” implies that they shouldn’t have to pay is simply not true.  That money comes from somewhere and helps fund ALL students, not simply non-PhD students.  You don’t get an education or your credentials for free and it’s rather arrogant and wrong to think you are entitled.

The other day, someone asked me what is a “skyscraper”.  Really.  I mean, they knew conceptually what a skyscraper was (or is), but they asked me for a definition of a skyscraper since I’m an urban planner.  Who cares, you ask?  Well, this all stems from the current battle for short hairs that is the LA mayoral race.  What exactly is a skyscraper and is Eric Garcetti even really responsible for Hollywood’s turn-around?

The campaign manager for Wendy Gruel (current city controller and my personal choice for mayor) said that their leading opponent, Eric Garcetti (current councilman for the Hollywood area), has brought “skyscrapers, traffic, and bad air quality to Hollywood”.  Garcetti’s camp responded by saying  “The irony is her own district is mired in unbearable traffic: Perhaps Ms. Greuel should try driving on Ventura Boulevard before she attacks other candidates about traffic.”  Gruel’s campaign manager also said something about the “Manhattanization” of development in Hollywood, which is a term I hate because it’s entirely misleading if not flat out false.  But that a topic for another post.  (story here)

Traffic

In any event, let’s just briefly mention to competing traffic claims.  I can easily tell you who has the worst traffic in Los Angeles by simply checking LADOT data.  But honestly, I don’t think anyone would care.  Starting an argument over whose LA traffic is worse than the other is pointless.  This is Los Angeles.  Traffic sucks here in general so no one wins.  Give this one a draw.

Air Quality

Second, air quality.  Air Quality in the Southland is equally as bad.  Unless you live right next to the beach, you’re not exactly taking in fresh air with every breath.  As of this morning, the Air Quality Index (AQI) for the LA metro area has the entire City of Los Angeles (valley and basin together) as having moderate air quality.  Another draw.

Skyscrapers

Now, on to the more interesting topic: skyscrapers and, more generally, economic development.  To begin, are the tall buildings in Hollywood, in fact, skyscrapers.  The answer is: “sure, why not.”

Not exactly a definitive answer, but truthful.  The reality is there is no definition of a skyscraper in the urban development or engineering lexicon.   In fact, the definition you, as the reader and member of an urban neighborhood, have is just as good of an idea of what a skyscraper is as an urban planner, developer, or engineer does.  A skyscraper is just a tall building that is noticeably taller than it’s urban surroundings.  In terms of new (or planned) buildings, this would include the W Hotel in Hollywood and the still-in-planning-phase Millennium Towers (definitely skyscrapers).  And it’s not really a secret that Garcetti is ok with this.  He’s even backed “density bonus” legislation for developers (search Reyes/Garcetti Plan).  Give one point to the Wendy Camp.

Hollywood Revitalization

There are skyscrapers in Hollywood and they’ve largely come about as part of the neighborhood’s revitalization efforts.  But can Garcetti take credit?  Well, that’s complicated.

Garcetti has held his council seat since 2001.  So he’s been there for about 12 years.  If we rewind Hollywood to 2000, it looked much different, but were things going on?  Yes.  There are two major projects that most developers and urban scholars would credit with starting the revitalization efforts in Hollywood.  Those two would be the Hollywood & Highland Center and the W Hotel & Residences near Hollywood & Vine.  The first of the two, the Hollywood & Highland Center, began construction before Eric Garcetti took office, so he can’t really claim that as a victory for his tenure.  The W Hotel, on the other hand, began construction while he was in office and he is on record supporting the project.  So he can take some credit for that project and it’s immediate surroundings.  But the interesting thing that comes up from these two projects is that it both proves and disproves Garcetti’s points.

First, Garcetti is not entirely responsible for the revitalization of Hollywood because it began before he took office with the construction of the Hollywood & Highland Center and has simply continued.   Property values begin to rise on their own, independently of any action Garcetti did or did not do.  You can’t simply claim total victory by proximity.  Second, the W Hotel is a skyscraper by most definitions.  So… yes, Garcetti, you have brought skyscrapers to Hollywood.  But the W Hotel is also very interesting because everything west of Hollywood and Vine is evidence of a neighborhood coming back, but immediately east of the W Hotel site there is the evidence of the old Hollywood where businesses are shuttered and parking lots abound.  So that site isn’t doing as well as the Hollywood & Highland Center site.  Give half a point to Garcetti.

So who wins?

In the end, I would say Wendy’s camp edges out a win on this argument mostly because nothing her camp has said regarding Hollywood’s condition is untrue.  Garcetti only loses by a hair because his claim of credit for Hollywood’s turnaround really does require an asterisk.  Garcetti benefits from being the council member for an area that is, objectionably, seeing a comeback.  But his broad credit-taking for this turnaround is a stretch.  The comeback can be seen beginning before he took office and the efforts of many people before him.  Even the W Hotel had many other city-wide supporters that helped bring it to fruition, like Mayor Villaraigosa and LA Metro (who owns the land).  This isn’t to say Garcetti hasn’t helped.  I’m entirely confident Garcetti cares about his district and made efforts to improve it.  Garcetti has previously backed density bonuses for developers as well (search Reyes/Garcetti Plan).  But can he take credit for what we are seeing?  He can have some, but definitively not all the credit.

Roobs received his Bachelors degree in Legal Studies & Sociology from UC Berkeley and a Masters in Urban & Regional Planning from UCLA with concentrations in Transportation Planning & Policy and Urban Design & Development.  Roobs currently is an urban planner in Los Angeles.

In the past two months, I’ve seen as many articles by gay men who are trying to explain why all gay men are seemingly obsessed with their physical appearance, specifically their physique.  The first article I saw was back in mid-July from the internet site Gawker, entitled, The real reason gay men don’t get fat.  The most recent article was written this week for a blog called Hommemaker.  Orlando Soria writes Why gay men hate their bodies.  Both articles make the unremarkable announcement that gay men are (wait for it), into physically fit bodies.  And not only are they into physically fit bodies they are, in fact… (drumroll) concerned with their own physical fitness.  Shocking, I know.  The main problem with posts like these, from my perspective, is less on the content and more on the stereotype and over simplified statement it makes about the gay community as a whole.

When I started my time at UC Berkeley, my first choices for majors were sociology and anthropology, specifically socio-cultural anthropology (basically social and cultural anthropology mixed together).  In the end I chose Legal Studies and Sociology as my two majors.  However, the early classes I took in anthropology were fascinating to develop a background in how humans behave in social groups, an academic curiosity that I maintained (see sociology major).  When I read what other gay men, young or old, have to say about the gay community as a whole, I have an almost Pavlovic reaction to perk my ears (in this case, eyes) and analyze what exactly is going on here.  Or more to the point, what exactly is wrong.  Enter Orlando Soria, the person and post I will be focusing on for the remainder of my post.

Orlando Soria writes his post from the sympathetic position of a young gay man who was once fat, now thin and trim.  He even inserts a picture of himself shirtless to illustrate his current status to speak on the issue.  Whether you agree with his post or not, it’s still applaudable Soria is willing to show his face, let alone his body, for his post.  Nonetheless, Soria makes the following, rather annoying declarative statements that attempt to explain why gay men (as a whole, mind you) hate their bodies:

1. Because we’re surrounded by images of perfect bodies.
2. Because we compare ourselves to our partners.
3. Because if you’re gay with a boyfriend, this is what he sees in the locker room (Insert really hot picture of guy showering here).
4. Because these are our most cherished community leaders (Insert really hot picture of a shirtless male bartender here).
5. Because gay people are more successful than other people, which makes them more competitive, with each other, which makes them more competitive about what their bodies look like.
6. Because we are always running around with our shirts off.
7. Because of fear.
8. Because all our friends look like Ken dolls (Insert really hot picture of a shirtless white guy here).
9. Because our most cherished teachers look like this (Insert picture of shirtless, muscled out gym instructor).
10. Because we have nothing better to do.

I will start off by saying that I do not necessarily disagree with his statements in the sense that they are his.  I have no doubt that Soria actually believes what he is saying and that he has probably experienced feelings and/or events that led him to believe his statements are true.  However, what I do have a problem with is a complete lack of respect for the fact that as one person, in one city of 35,000 people where only 1/3 identify as LGBT, he seems to think that his experiences in West Hollywood are a reflection of the rest of society (gay, that is).  Let’s start taking this down.

Points 1 & 2

The points are valid taken on the whole.  I think gay men really are surrounded by images of perfect bodies to which we compare ourselves (in part because of stereotypes perpetuated by the kind of assumptions Soria makes).  And who hasn’t compared ourselves to our partners?  But the biggest issue with these first two points is Soria’s assumption and assertion that these are somehow uniquely gay issues.  Straight men and women are surrounded by the same images of “ideal” bodies to which they can and do compare themselves.

And straight couples do compare themselves to each other.  Soria takes a rather simplistic view (this will become a theme) of the way in which we compare.  He insists guy-guy comparison is more accurate than guy-girl comparison.  Taken literally, this is probably true.  I can more accurately compare my body to the hot guy running next to me at the gym because I, theoretically, could work out enough to the point where I can have a similar physique to his, which I am currently admiring.  However, straight couples compare each other all the time.  Perhaps on a more macro level.  They can compare themselves by comparing their partners to an “ideal” and then comparing that ideal to themselves.  To put another way, we view ourselves one way, perhaps we think we are only moderately attractive.  But our partner is hot.  She’s a 10!  Me, I’m a 7 at best.  I look at her and her body and compare myself and think, I’m not good enough for her.  Or I need to be more attractive to keep her.  Again, this is not uniquely gay.

Also, the idea that men are more visually stimulated is also not new.  It’s been an accepted truth for some time now.  But again, ALL MEN are visually stimulated.  Not simply gay men.  Soria also makes the strange and terribly misinformed assertion that marketers use pictures of hot gay men to attract gay men.  Actually, marketers use pictures of hot MEN to attract gay men and straight women.  Take a trip over to 2(X)ist  (seriously, it’s pretty hot).  I’m willing to bet a lot of money that the vast majority of the models on this site are straight and it is rather selfish and socially self-centered for Soria to think that the hot guys are all gay.  Remember, just because you want them to be gay doesn’t make it so (sadly).

Points 3, 4, 6, 8 & 9

Soria uses five bullet points to essentially say the same thing (he actually gives no supportive evidence for Points 4 and 9):  Gay men like attractive bodies.  In fact, we like attractive bodies and compare ourselves to these bodies that we will begin to emulate them (see Points 1 & 2).  Also, because we are surrounded by all these attractive bodies, we feel compelled to compete with them to ensure we get our man(see Points 1 & 2).

Again, these are hardly unique to gay men.  In fact, Soria actually proves this when he cites a New York Times article that makes the argument skinny people tend to have skinny friends (or those with skinny friends tend to be skinny too).  I agree with Soria in that this is a kind of peer pressure, perhaps a positive one.  But again, it’s this absurd assertion that he has stumbled upon a eureka moment: THIS IS WHY GAY MEN HATE THEIR BODIES!  Nope.

This is actually proving an already widely accepted truth among social scientists regarding social groups: social groups tend to be made up of those with similar interests and values.  Social scientists lump this in what’s called Social Group or Social Identity Theory.  Humans have been forming groups since the beginning.  High school is a great example: nerds hang out with nerds, popular kids hang out in the quad, the jocks are all over in the other corner, etc.  So even as we  get older, if you are a guy who likes to go to the gym, or ride his bike, or do other active activities, you will likely hang out with other similar minded men.  And those activities in particular tend to bring with them the positive side effect of hot bodies.

To end this section, let me focus on Points 4 & 9.  I find this offensive, actually.  Ignoring that Soria provides no evidence to support that either a bartender or a gym teacher are idols in the gay community, even the suggestion of such a thing is offensive and dumb.  Perhaps those are his idols and if they are, more power to him.  But my idol is not a bartender.  I love a good cocktail and I love a bartender who knows my drinks before I do.  But to suggest that they are the community leaders of LGBT men and women is to disserve all the leaders that have come before and worked tirelessly to improve the lives of gay men and women everywhere.  It is perpetuating a stereotype of the LGBT community that those who are animatedly against homosexuality use against us.  On these two points, I admit to a much more emotional anger towards his stereotyping and ones he should frankly be ashamed of them.

Point 7

This is a more interesting point and, frankly, the only one truly worth a prolonged discussion of.  But because Soria limits it to what he read on the previously cited Gawker article and a few sentences, I’m not sure he is truly capable of it.

In any event, the idea that gay men, in general, suffer from a type of “fear” that results in their particular behavior is not new.  In 2005, psychologist Alan Downs wrote the book called, The Velvet Rage: Overcoming the pain of growing up gay in a straight man’s world.  The book is actually pretty accessible and an easy read.  I would recommend it more for explorative purposes than as an attempt to help any one person deal with their own issues.  Not to say you can’t.  It’s your call.  Nevertheless, Downs spends over 200 pages describing how gay men suffer from, you guessed it, fear – a fear that resulted from unfulfilled paternal love during their most vulnerable and socially important times of their lives.  But like most psychiatric explanations, it is not universal.  The assertion Soria makes that this, yet again, explains why gay men hate their bodies is a giant leap forward for stereotyping.  I have no doubt that there are gay men who would fit this description, but not all.  And it is yet again, not limited to gay men.

Points 5 & 10

Points 5 & 10 are relatively similar but it’s specifically Point 10 I want to focus on and really warrants me to copy his “reasoning”.

“Because of all their money, intelligence, and free time, Gays love hobbies. Being manic about our bodies is just another activity to add to our list of Gay Cruises, hipster-indie concerts, and gallery openings.”

I’m not really sure how to respond to Point 10.  Like Points 4 & 9, I almost have anger towards it. It displays such a weak and immature understanding of the gay community and the issues it faces.  It reflects the privileged talking down to the masses, like Mitt Romney saying the rest of the country should lift themselves up from their bootstraps to make money because he already has it.  The LGBT community has those who have been very successful in life.  But they are not the entirety of it.  Forty percent of homeless youth in this country are LGBT.  But if you only read Soria’s explanation, you would think all young gay men do is hang around shirtless with their money and cocktails.  Instead, these kids are suffering from hate, poverty, and sexual abuse.  Again, Soria is absolutely wrong and should ashamed and embarrassed for such an idiotic statement when there is so much suffering by LGBT youth in this country.

In closing – we’re special.  Just like everyone else

I wrote a brief post in the past on the fissures I see growing between the young and older generations of the LGBT community, specifically focused on urban development patterns and preferences located in Los Angeles.  In that post, I briefly talk about how the fissures developing are due to, oddly enough, the successes of the older generation.  The older generation, through their struggles and victories, have made being gay more acceptable today than it ever has been.  Though there is still a lot of progress that can be made, the dire need for gay neighborhoods to act as safe havens for gay youth is not as necessary as it once had been.  The fact is, gays are assimilating into society and society is starting to embrace them.  Once that happens, the social “uniqueness” of gays begins to lose ground.  Older gays see this as a problem that needs to be fixed; to preserve the wild, crazy and “out” nature of gay culture while implying something wrong with assimilation into the rest of society (social scientists would probably call this a form of in-group bias - meaning you view your group more positively than any “out” or “other” group.  It is also not unique to the LGBT community.  Cultural assimilation is a common topic of debate in the study of ethnic minorities).  The young generation, on the other hand, sees this as unnecessary and begins to join their straight brothers and sisters in the rest of the town.  While this topic may seem off from the topic of this post, I assure you there is a connection.

Let’s ignore the age component of my argument in the past post and just look at it as two camps: those who see the loss of uniqueness as a problem and those who see the loss of uniqueness as successful integration into the rest of society.  I would put Soria into camp one.  These posts that are coming out and talking about how gay men hate their bodies could be interpreted as gay men looking for some uniqueness to themselves – that they are somehow special and this explains the “why” and the “who”.  And when you look at in this way, you can see how tragic (not in a bad way) this is but also how ridiculously common this is among EVERYONE.

Who hasn’t spent time thinking of themselves as special or unique.  We all want to be different and in our own ways we are.  But those in “camp one” are out trying to identify themselves as part of a special group that is different from the rest of society.  They are trying to establish themselves as the “other”.  Because once you establish yourself as the other, all the issues, failures or even triumphs you experience are because you are somehow different.  It provides some level of temporary satisfaction in explaining why we do what we do and why we are who we are.

In a way, parents of children see this all the time (yes, I did essentially call Soria a child).  Teenagers will often try to go against the grain, to go against society and be their own person and blah blah blah.  That is essentially what I am seeing here with these posts.  Even after all the stereotyping of the community and oversimplification of the very real issues that gay men and women can suffer from, it is simply their attempt to make themselves feel special and provide some level of understanding in the complex social world we all live in.

In closing, Soria’s article is frankly immature. To me, it reflects a man trying to explain the legitimate issues and questions he faces, but done in a way that is damaging to the very group he claims to speak for.  While I can understand, I can’t agree or support his post in the slightest form.

Roobs received his Bachelors degree in Legal Studies & Sociology from UC Berkeley and a Masters in Urban & Regional Planning from UCLA with concentrations in Transportation Planning & Policy and Urban Design & Development.  Roobs currently works as an urban planner in the Los Angeles area.