LA couple builds backyard cottage, then moves-in from main home 

I was thinking the same thing, how a tall structure blocks light from reaching the neighbor's back yard and obstructs their view. Unless they discussed this building with the neighbor before construction. Otherwise, it is the epitome of selfishness.

totally agree. I would have insisted it be one story.

No two story houses in 1930s in this area. You’re just making up a point that doesn’t exist

Was thinking the same thing when I saw that drone footage. The neighbor is now boxed in and doesn't have a view. This guy sounds like he might be a selfish douche.

My first thought as well

so, invite the cranky neighbors over for a cold, dead fish/(a.k.a. sushi) and let them sleep on the roof, once-a-month!

I hope they do, these guys finish the video talking about adding essentially another floor. He says it will be cool not adding a railing but I bet it’s another loophole in the codes that will take more views away from his neighbor.

It is LA afterall.

Floyd -19 i

My thoughts exactly. This kind of planning permission can ruin neighbours lives and the neighbour will struggle to sell too to get out of the situation. Such a shame.

It was approved by the city sooo to bad.

Just makes sense.

I saw on documentary once that those rich people in Silicon Valley built their mansion in the back and use the old front house like that as some kind of decoy so that any burglar wannabe would not want to come because those old house is just uninviting. Or you could just rent it if you want/need the money.

I thought that too!

_ Gita j

HOW people think *increased density* is still COOL with the breath of a global pandemic yet breathing down their necks, I'll never know. Here's a clue: SHARING STUFF makes you much more susceptible to sharing germs and endangering the whole planet! And the closer packed you think we should be, the more dangerous you are! People in large apartment/condo structures live in petri dishes. People who share cars or pack into public trains or buses are being transported in communal petri dishes. People who put their hands onto shared electric scooters are potential *disease vectors.* WAKE UP! You were wrong!!

Steven Strain smarter to put the panels in the original residence. Plenty of space and exposure on that roof.

Agreed--not a shade garden though!

Los Angeles: With all the existential threats (water scarcity, earthquakes, heatwaves, extreme wealth inequality, air pollution) that will endanger life in this mega metropolis, it is the last place to invest in a house for any sane person. For a great garden get out of the city to where there is actual rainfall.

I agree.

superbly done

Google California ADU, a recent law intended to make housing cheaper by allowing this kind of development. "The Legislature further updated ADU and JADU law effective January 1, 2020 to clarify and improve various provisions in order to promote the development of ADUs and junior accessory dwelling units (JADUs)."

Very good point!!!!

I'd rather see wall than bald head of my neighbor

Noticed that one too. The neighbor on the driveway side. Which before they might have a little of the view coz it was only a garage before. But now that its 2 story high. So the backyard house now totally blocked it. Nice whit wall though.

romel sual I agree

Looking at 1:16 makes me feel bad for the neighbor... maybe they can use it as a projector wall but it won’t make up for the loss of view and probably a drop in property value.

Nancy Hong lmaooo wow they completely destroyed their neighbors view. i wonder how they’d feel if someone built a back house obstructing their view 😂

the couple either have connections or friends who do zoning and permits or the neighbors signed off on it either way sounds fishy and still kinda a dick move on the builder part

I recently moved from the L.A. area and trust me they must have greased some serious palms to get that approved. What really bothers me is they act like just anyone can do it when it's not true at all. Most backyards in L.A. are not big enough do it. What also bewilders me is how they were allowed to get rid of the garage. You are not allowed to remove a parking space and not replace it elsewhere on your plot. Otherwise everyone would turn their garages into an ADU and then the streets would be filled with parked cars. There is some seriously fishy things going on here. But yeah, complete asshole neighbor to build that two story home and completely block off their neighbors view, essentially massively devaluing his neighbors homes to boost his.

A deck with no railings? He's blocked more than just his neighbors view. He tied into the city sewer with another house as it's bigger than a granny unit can be and he looks down into everyone's backyard...? There is NO WAY this got through the permit process legally.

also 5:19 and 8:47

@@cas1128 happens to the ones lucky to be in the loop with the permitting.

The garage was there, now there's a house. They couldn't see over the garage anyway. Although they might lose some natural light...

Every man for himself, dog eat dog, kill or be killed etc.

They may not have even thought about it. It might depend on the grade of the hill whether of not they had one to begin with.

Yeah...I’m afraid this reminded me of the lovely view my parents *used* to have out their back windows-could see the Hollywood sign and the Griffith Observatory on a clear day-then the back-fence neighbors built a 3 story monolith that now looms over the backyard. Goodbye, view-and privacy, too

@@barbaradace7952 in most parts of LA they are not allowed to simply build and block your view. As a neighbor you have a right to enjoy your property as well, and if the neighbors new building encroaches upon your rights including your view, you can have it stopped and modified.

I would think proper legal work and approval hv already been obtain prior to construction?

Yes, I was thinking that if his neighbour did the same he would lose his beautiful view.

over population. In the last 40 years, the population has doubled. Nowhere else to go. Sucks people make so many more people.

Looking forward

Are there no regulations regarding height of buildings in LA ?

@@thomasvan3786 I was wondering that!!

LOL

It looks so out of place for the neighborhood 😩

@@nikkis.6656 actually it looks "in place", sun, views, light, windows, outdoor area, etc... but n'bors probably complain.

@@nikkis.6656 that's the first thing that came to mind

True. Too big. And code allowed this and that wooded walkway hanging over the cliff without a railing? As a neighbor, I would have been kinda pissed blocking MY views. Typical entitlement mindset. 🙄

@@salemdesigns65 Hundreds of videos of small and tiny homes -NONE of them are legally built! This is the first time I see a legally built small home (with over sites you mention) thanks to APU exception. The sad part is that obviously if neighbors do the same this house will lose it's charm and value. There is no "air rights" for APU.

Surprised LA code allowed the building . Agree neighbors must be sooooo thrilled looking at this behemoth box.... hahahahaha

Why should your neighbours get to decide what you do with your own land?

Will you stop build a house and add values if your neighbour asks you not to do because of the loss of views? They can do anything as long as they have a permit from the council.

@@halu0430 the question is not 'can they'. of course they 'can'. but 'should they'. it's more of a question of douchiness and character.

Of course you don’t want to upset your neighbours needlessly but…you also have to live for yourself and your family and if you have the view on your property it makes sense to maximize it both for visual but also for financial.

F the neighborhor

Yes, wonder what the neighbour thinks of the new building.

@@Zalley hopefully not anything bad. Accept change if not keep your old house looking like shit and say something negative only because you can't afford something. Typical California mindset.

it has the height of a tree and a modern architecture language

@Flat Eric not all Americans

First, that's not true because they don't overlap over the neighbor's property and thus do not completely block their entire view, only part of it which is just at an angle... While ignoring the neighbors house on the right is 2 stories too and thus similarly blocks part of their view in the opposite direction... While all the houses in the neighborhood block some view at the ground level... Reality is views are inconvenienced just by having neighbors and you're not going to be able to avoid that... Second, it's a misconception, views you want are not guaranteed... Especially, not in a neighborhood... Closest you could get to that kind of consideration is within an HOA, otherwise... Unless they violate some code or zoning restriction or cause some sort of tangible damage to your property then your neighbors are part of your view, just as much as the natural landscape... Otherwise, get a property that isn't near any neighbors if you really want unobstructed views...

Not really. The neighbor at 8:50 is only two stories and uphill of this brutalist square. The building permit needs checked for height plans and limitations. The second story even hangs over. Good grief.

Not only that... he's advocating this as a model for everybody! He's basically saying, "Let's double the density of LA." *HELLO?* Traffic? Road maintenance? Landfill capacity? Water usage? Electrical Grid? Pollution? Do people even THINK before they propose these cockamamie notions?

@@jonothandoeser LA is not exactly the poster child for urban planning in any sense.

@@lukerabin5079 So... from bad to worse?

@@jonothandoeser no. Worse would be permitting more hills monstrosities, worse would be making certain that only the wealthy who don’t contribute to the tax pool ensure that infrastructure decays even more.

@@lukerabin5079 What's a hills monstrosity?

Yes, it clearly blocks the view of one immediate neighbor. And the other immediate neighbor does have to look at that building looking down on them in their backyard.

@@fallingalice2601 Yes it is

That was my immediate thought, too.

Its true, but this is the reality of high-value city residential That's why its important to open a dialogue with the new owners asap so you can either influence their plans or sell

Not only does it block the view. No sunshine and blocked the wind. No fresh air. Selfish people. I have a neighbor that did me dirty and they don't care either.

there's a huge housing shortage in LA, so i think giving up a bit of your view for a more livable affordable city for all is a good tradeoff

Some people dont want change and except a 1960 build, Make more liveable space rent it out live better. You wont please everyone if you do the change . But you will improve your life.

@Fritz Schnauzer Is whining all that you are about ?. It is those people's land. Not the neighbors. If the city approved it then it's done. If the neighbors don't like it they can move. To late to do something about after it's been built. But how do you know they did or didn't go to the neighbors first and say, this is what we are planning to do ?. Would you have an issue with it?. Next thing your going to whine about is not having approval first to pick what car they drive. Or how many kids they want to have.

Emile K Exactly my point: the owners of the new structure think it’s perfectly acceptable to force their neighbors to sacrifice their view - and sun and air circulation - as long as the owners of the new building gain. The new owners sacrifice nothing and gain everything. Prototypical California narcissists.

Full Body Joe No, sorry, you’re wrong my friend. No whining; just pointing out the facts.

Planning permission in the UK is pretty shit but stuff like this makes me kind of glad we have it

@Shayne Punim I live in Texas and it is like this for my area too, especially if you want to build a two-story dwelling, because then you can see into your neighbors' yards and a lot of people don't like that.

Yea I pretty much hate this guy, he obviously had no consideration for his neighbors AT ALL.

on the other side one can say that houses like bungalows are a waste of valuable land. Two storey houses with flat roofs (without roof terrace) usually have similar maximum height to ordinary bungalow type of house with pitched roof

I've seen a couple of infill developments like this on this channel in Canada. As for California, there is a new, statewide law intended to make housing cheaper, and allows this assault on the neighbors. The one positive is that the neighbors can do the same thing.

It's decent of you to be thoughtful, but maybe there's not much of a loss, as most homes around them are single story homes, so wouldn't see much - if any of the elevated view these home owners now have, just due to the siting of those single story homes, surrounding trees, shrubs & other plantings, & the positions of their windows. @ 8:58 min you can see an elevated view, & only one house, to the right has a 2nd floor, so that & maybe one more, in back of that house, if they could see over the nearest house., which may have lost a view. If it's a home used for rentals, then only the upstairs apartment lost some, but maybe not all of it's view.

They must have approved it. I believe American lawsuit culture would have made people make things legal proof. My guess, I am not American. I just know Americans like to sue.

@@Xunxunism Well this is California so that is doubly true.

mystarmach what view they probably were looking straight at another house

@@actontreadway1168 I live in another county but there are straight regulations on every aspect of building anything. Therefore, it is allowed there, many small homes in LA are added on to with a second floor. It's just they way it is in a city that lacks more space to build.

Eventually everyone WILL do this, because California changed the law and encourages it in order to lower housing costs. In theory, at least.

I wouldn't mind lookind down to a house this shape .. It's the contrary of ugly .. black ,white and wood surfaces perfectly balanced. Keep in mind he happens to be at the highest point and looking over a small cliff essentially , it's not that high a structure..

not really as there was a garage there before allready and they allready coulnt see over that.

A molotov cocktail would solve that in a heartbeat 😭😂

@@naughtysauce4323 A hallowed out foundation will work too. 🤗🤗

You'd think they never had any view from the start which is why the city approved it. Otherwise that's pretty messed up, I wonder if they could sue the city for approving that shit and lost property value?

Seems to tower over the neighborhood and grandfathering the tiny setback must have really gone over well with the neighbors

@Robin Young yikes so who gives one about you?

I don’t know RE, but I would think it would only add to the value of the neighborhood. It’s a beautiful build.

They should be able to paint that huge white wall as that's all they will ever see again

@@TruthQuest4700 pssh look at 8:50. Look out their windows to a stucco-ish wall.

@@TruthQuest4700 no, look at how much view and light are lost. The garage was like 10 ft tall and nearly at the plot line.

They can build their own mini mansion, if they have the talent.

Umm there was a garage there before. Neighbors enjoyed looking at the garage. Lol

It is out of place. If they aren't into LA bungalows they shouldn't have bought one. I absolutely hate this and hope others don't pull this crap

@e- w- DERP. Lol Ok, so that neighbor was having friends and family gatherings in their upstairs rooms ?. Drinking coffee upstairs, and barbeques upstairs?. Lol Stop it. Lol 🤦🏽‍♂️🤦🏽‍♂️ From the neighbors backyard they were only seeing the old garage and their own fence. Lol DERP.

Right???

like nice budget

In LA 1 million

@Justin K I would say close to 1m.

350-450k if not more including the landscaping.

In this case: not really. ADU’s (allowed to build in backyards) have typically become simply extra income for landlords. Even when they are fully used, they have adverse consequences like building high creates a lack of light on neighbors.

@@Liam-bv1sy You only get extra income if you have the space rented out. If you are renting out a space that previously could not be rented out (ie a garage) then you have increased the available housing. Also, everything has adverse consequences.

Its their property, they can rent the old place and If someone that RENTS the Front HOUSE, can move if they dont like this man's personally owned land. GOD GAVE US FREE WILL.

@@clairecolvin4077 surrounding neighbours. Consideration..

On the other hand .... If there were no ordinances , someone could start a hog ranch or a cattle feedlot right next door . Imagine that for a minute

@@clairecolvin4077 calm down. You're only saying that because someone hasn't did it to you.

Claire Colvin free will to be completely oblivious to the world around you

This is exactly what I thinking the neighboring houses are blocked from there views and replaced with a huge white wall ..

Los Angeles: With all the existential threats (water scarcity, earthquakes, heatwaves, extreme wealth inequality, air pollution) that will endanger life in this mega metropolis, it is the last place to invest in a house for any sane person.

@@griffin2263 They altered the skyline for many of the houses on the adjacent hill... This is a big NO-NO in California. That and the no railings on the deck make me think this did not pass permits legally...

@@offthemap9582 try the big island everyone is screwed

@@offthemap9582 on the other hand there is strength in numbers and more social services available here to people who might need it. That said, I am I getting out of Los Angeles for the very reasons you mentioned!

Additional dwelling units with minimal setbacks are no allowed in the state of California by state law to help address the housing crisis. It isn't a loophole.

@@andrewhowie5651 You mean "now" allowed right?

The setback of the 🆕 ADU is in the EXACT same footprint as the former garage. Setbacks became more defined + stricter later here〰️ and still remain fairly firm around most of greater LA. 🛠️ Sometimes in a reno we are 🍀 lucky when we can "grandfather" in existing features that are no longer to code. If this building code had been created for 🔥wildfire clearance, new zoning would NOT have allowed it in the new build. 🤔The next door property likely has a driveway & garage in a similar location, so they are unlikely to be disturbing the neighbor's peace on that left side. On the right & rear side, it appears as if the neighbors are on a lower plain. 😉Ppl that live in this hilly terrain are used to terraced lots. Most homeowners attention & focus is on the greater canyon or city views beyond (vs their neighbor's activity above or below their property). 🗝️The key is that this mod cottage is unlikely blocking anyone's view. Except perhaps the renters in the main house, but overall that's not necessarily a deal breaker for this hip gentrified location. 💚 Bridget from Cali☘️ (using my pal's YT acct)

Yes that guy seems like a real jerk.

To be build this in LA for $200 a foot would be considered very cheap. It is approximately 1200 feet. It probably cost 200k-300k. They are in the industry. A novice could pay considerably more. The land in that neighborhood with that house on it would currently sell for $800-$1,200,000.

With the existing house............

More like $400 SF I am replacing my two-car garage with 600 SF ADU in the Los Angeles Mid-City area, Quoted price $224k

They converted a garage to a house. Nothing to do with "access to any kind of nature". Now I think the house is a beautiful part of the nature.

between $200 and $300 per square foot.

He did say they had a “modest” budget. under a mil I guess.

They obviously plan to make money back renting out the front house. I wonder how much they can rent such a house out for? 2k a month? Or is it even more crazy than that because it's California?

@@WaterspoutsOfTheDeep My guess is closer to 3,500 a mo

Ace Boiga so he said 20 x 30 = 600sq ft ground level, with cantilevering im guess 2 nd fl is 24 x 36 = 864sq ft. 600+864=1464 sqft 1464 x $200=$292,800 or 1464x$300=$439,200 does that sound about right?

The neighbors have houses like the one on the front of this property that just ignore the view. They probably don't know what they lost because they weren't using it.

@@condew6103 Well the view from the rear was blocked by all those trees - unclear who's property they are on. It also looks like there were more trees on the property line before construction, can't be sure though. However from a few shots it looks like the upstairs of the neighbors house would have enjoyed some of that view but not now. They just see the white monolith. I don't know what the view rights are in LA but for sure there was some love lost over this supersized garage.

Cloud Run look at 15:30 ish, doesn’t look like they are blocking anyone’s view.

@@sidilicious11 No, look at 8:50 ..the people on the right got totally blocked out. I mean, it is what it is, but their neighbors home lost a lot of value loosing that view.

Honestly that view is not so great just a bunch of cramped houses

Close to where I live, somebody legally built a similar monolith - causing the city planners to change regulations to avoid more eyesores. And that even was in an area with mansion-like houses from the turn of the previous century !

@ :-)

And no railing on the deck? Does California not care?

The original house is the eyesore.

Why would they. They paid for the land and need to keep their own priorities first and foremost. The city is who is at fault for approving that and the neighbors should be able to sue the city for lost property value and so on.

@@WaterspoutsOfTheDeep Generally, not how it works... Besides, the ADU increases the property value and in turn that gives a boost to the surrounding property values... So not much to complain about...

WaterspoutsOfTheDeep ..wow...a more American(LA) response to a comment I have yet to see...always looking to sue someone....I would hate to have you as a neighbour...selfish tosser !

exactly! they don't give a **** about the neighbors. he's so proud of "inheriting" the setback so he doesn't have to put his box further away from his neighbor. beautiful little jewel box house but TOTALLY tone deaf to the negative impacts of density and traffic added to an historic hillside neighborhood with smaller scale infrastructure. thanks again city of lala planning.

I assume the parking requirements have been relaxed in California along with the promotion of the accessory units because of the massive housing crisis. Homes are completely unaffordable and there is a large homeless population. So at some point the argument that there needs to be a spare parking space or a larger patch of grass for the dog to shit on or whatever, just doesn't make sense when compared to the fact that people need places to live. We also are anticipating the roll out of self-driving cars within a decade or so and that will eliminate most of the parking requirements.

@@runvnc208 Yes, I'm sure a homeless family will be welcomed into the front bungalow here and get to and from the market in a self-driving car. La la la la laaaaaaaaaa...

Vintage Violet: Oh, I totally agree with you.

Yes exactly, I kept thinking these owners are so selfish for doing this..

Unless you are 3 floors up you don't have that view.

I thought about the planks too, haha.

Rustic...

Maybe the decking is like that on purpose!

@@320dak Yes, it's reclaimed wood and Japanese designs usually embraces nature... Besides, it's flat enough, nothing that would effect its function and only really noticeable when looking at it closely from the edge.

@@ZeoCyberG Nope, in Japan the planks would be perfectly leveled, squared and laid flat.

it should have been one story. if he got a permit to build this monstrosity, then the NIMBYists are not doing their job smh.

How can you call a low footprint cute little white box a monstruosity?

@@Constantinesis lol how can you call a ginormous view-blocking TWO-STORY construction a low footprint cute little box?!

@@teeque5320 I don't understand the outrage. There's already a two-story building right next to theirs, behind a line of trees that block the view anyway.

@@teeque5320 it's a 3 story stucco-looking brutalist monolith. The permits should be checked again.

Yup. They got the permits and Certificate of Occupancy to prove it

+JIAQ Y That could never happen here. Of course that's in F-d-up California.

Escape the Matrix , ya ought to see what they’re doing in Canada

I was thinking that too. 😥

how?

I hear it works wonders for coronavirus!

No living inside a squared box

Not very neighborly, but what are they ? Arrivistes ?

Clever. Befriend the enemy.

Probably not.

Yes that would be nice so they can see the view they dnt have anymore.🤣 And maybe they will yard. A house in there back yard.

Its called air space . Get a permit for your house to maximize your living area. MAKES SENCE UPGRADE OR STAY BEHIND.

I think the old stuff is an eyesore. And time is deteriorating LA IMO.

He said it was next on their list...

I do not know his case but here in Europe you do not any special railing if the parapet wall on the roof is at least one meter high

Of if his neighbours built the same thing on the lot next door. Boom there goes your oasis.

How do we know they didn't inform the neighbors about what they were planning ?. Remember there was a garage there before. Neighbors couldn't see past the garage anyway. If the homeowners are not being loud or obnoxious and it was approved by the city, the neighbors have to deal with it.

@@72Dexter72Manley72 The second floor of the neighbors' house originally looked over the 1-story garage south towards downtown.

Tomfoolery & Skulduggery along with the douchebaggery😜

All while eliminating on-lot parking so everybody want to park on the street. Could be a nice way to do urban renewal, though, if the old house is torn down for parking.