Yes, California, There Really <i> Is</i> a Panacea

If a single product could keep jobs in California, democratize homeownership, cut smog, increase leisure, reduce burglaries, improve the lives of women and children, beat traffic and save lives, what would you call it?

Well, panacea is one possibility. But the product is better known in public as (ta-dah) the condominium. And under the right circumstances, it is a panacea.

I can almost hear the groans. Condos are a bad investment, you say. They lack privacy. They’re part of the yuppie disease. They’re tacky.

But hold on a minute. Condos also offer a way out of the destructive pattern of sprawl and unaffordability that is driving business away--and driving people crazy. Condos needn’t look like horror-film motels. And with just a little help from the state, they’d offer enormous advantages for all of us--even those who choose different kinds of residences.

First, understand that “condominium” is just a form of ownership. It doesn’t necessarily mean the units will be attached. But it does imply two crucial things: Units are smaller than the suburban dinosaurs so many of us aspire to, and they use less land.

Second, “condo” needn’t mean a boring flat with cottage-cheese ceilings and shag carpet. Innovative architects and builders across North America are creating what are basically interesting little houses, with great success.

In San Francisco, for example, Donald MacDonald designs and builds free-standing homes in densities of up to 70 per acre, 15 or 20 times the suburban standard. More than 100 of these have already been built around the Bay Area. Because local zoning won’t permit single-family homes so close together, the land is held commonly by a residents’ association. But make no mistake, these are houses.

In Montreal, architect Witold Rybczynski designed a charming 1,000-square-foot row house now being copied all over town at a fraction of the cost of more conventional homes. Customers snap them up.

That shouldn’t be a surprise. Here in California, what we need is a different kind of housing--maybe several different kinds. Big suburban houses and far-flung developments were fine when one wage earner commuted and Mom stayed home to care for the house and chauffeur the kids.

But today, two-thirds of California women ages 16 to 65 are part of the labor force. The traditional nuclear family is a minority of households, more than half of which contain only one or two people. There are more single parents, too.

A long commute from an energy- and labor-intensive home is no longer practical, but without higher densities, aspiring homeowners are condemned to drive from places like Palmdale.

What we need is more small homes, more “granny flats” behind big homes and more clever ways of achieving density without resort to big apartment buildings.

“Americans cannot solve their current housing problems without reexamining the ideal of the single-family house,” says Dolores Hayden in her book, “Redesigning the American Dream.”

So for just a few minutes, let us now praise infamous condos:

* Condos are cheaper. They sell for 30% less than houses in California. More condos mean more people can afford to own, a major tax and investment advantage.

* Condos can keep jobs in California. One of the complaints most often cited by departing companies is the high cost of housing. Wider acceptance of condos would make all housing more affordable.

* Condos help save the Earth. With fewer exposed walls, condos save energy. Higher density means more people could live closer to jobs and housing, with less driving.

- Condos are safer. With better security than homes, they especially appeal to women, says Johannes Van Tilburg, a Santa Monica architect praised by critics for gracious condo designs such as his Venice Renaissance building or his Crossroads units in Inglewood. And by reducing commuting distances, more condos would mean fewer auto fatalities and less air pollution.

* Condos suit the way people live. The harried could forget home-repair headaches. Parents could spend more time with children. For women, traditional suburban homes can be a burden. And for mobile Californians, condos are easier to rent.

* Condos promote community. They can mean pools, on-site child care and closer neighbors.

Unfortunately, our panacea has been a lousy investment. Since 1982, median California condo prices have risen to $147,440 from $108,900--no gain at all, counting inflation. Worse, single-family homes in 1982 cost $111,500 in California, almost the same as condos. Yet, they’ve soared to $207,840.

OK, people prefer homes--they outnumber condos 10 to 1 in this state--but the condo is making a comeback. Condos have claimed a larger share of statewide home sales every year since 1984, when they were 14%. In 1990 they were 28%. And since early 1989, condo prices have rebounded, rising faster than home prices.

California’s future certainly holds more density. The key will be good architecture that produces house-like condos; townhouses, if you will, that feel more like homes, with privacy, outdoor space and individual entrances. To get these, many communities need to reconsider restrictive zoning and building codes.

Business can help. Developer Jeff Lee of Harlan Lee & Assoc., which is building condos behind the Wiltern Theater on Wilshire Boulevard near a planned Metro stop, hopes firms under pressure to develop transit plans will help employees buy accessible condos.

California could also nudge people in the right direction with a modest tax on home appreciation exceeding, say, $50,000. Condos would be exempt. Proceeds could be used to house the homeless.