[nomel]

I think it's the only possible outcome if sprawl is allowed.

New families with some money spend too much income buying house.

Kids move out, parents get old and don't get out as much. Don't keep up the house, because they need to retire.

Sell house that's only attractive to lower income. Low income statistics take over the area.

Nearby businesses close from everything related to low income statistics.

Repeat with new families and newly built houses at edge of city, letting the interior rot.

Like a slime mold.

[asdff]

Infill development used to be allowed in California but it stopped in the early 70s when communities turned to zoning to exclude blacks and browns after redlining was made illegal. The many sundown towns did not go without a fight. There are still some pieces of what that infil looked like. The bog standard brick 5 story building you see all over east coast cities can be found in california in parts, often sticking out like a sore thumb because nothing has been allowed to be built to that height since the late 1960s/early 1970s. The dingbat is another example of infill housing that was since made illegal although it was quite popular. Most blocks you see with some sort of apartments were at one point single family home lots, but this sort of development carefully limited to the blocks you now see them instead of widespread throughout the area.

There was even a time when very large highrises were being constructed e.g. Wilshire Blvd's condo canyon. But that was also seen as a blight and quickly stopped in its tracks from expanding beyond the immediate arterial frontage. All hell would surely break loose if you allowed for student housing to be built on the eastern edge of UCLA instead of contained in the sliver of land between the school and veterans cemetery I guess. Unfortunately for the student body, the school is shoehorned in between two prestigious country clubs, and it is clear where priorities lay among local leadership.