Grand Avenue - Presentation Tuesday 22 February 2005

[LongBeachUrbanist]

The Grand Avenue Committee, working with Related Companies, will be presenting its work to-date at the following meeting.

. Tuesday, February 22
. 6:00 - 7:30 pm
. Dorothy Chandler Pavilion Grand Hall
. 135 North Grand Avenue
. Free Parking at LADWP
. Located at 111 North Hope Street

There will be other meetings throughout the region, although last time, most of them were cancelled. So this is the one to attend. Let your voices be heard, fellow urbanists!!!

:speech:

[LongBeachUrbanist]

When this billion-dollar project opens in about five years, it is destined to be the crowning jewel of a truly revitalized LA Central City. It would be the greatest disappointment if the project opened in isolation, still surrounded by empty lots and sad empty streets.

Right now the city should be thinking big, and doing everything it can to ensure that the area surrounding this development truly stands out. Specifically, the city needs to

:cool:...redouble its efforts to stimulate development along 2nd and Hill Streets.
:cool:...fund and complete the 1st Street Redesign Project.
:cool:...improve transit and taxi access, here and throughout the city.
:cool:...consider creating a landmark bridge at the Grand/4th Street overcrossing, as suggested by architect Doug Suisman.
:cool:...lobby the county to tear down those damn buildings.

Grand Center needs to have a world-class grand opening. This will be the world debut of 21st-Century Downtown Los Angeles. A city becomes a truly great city if it is willing and able to take advantage of its own massive developments. Hopefully, our city leaders recognize that this is a singular opportunity they had better not squander.

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

Great ideas that seem obvious yet it seems as though no one at City Hall gets it. i wish we had a way to talk to hahn face to face. maybe LABeauty can bring it up to his contacts at work or others he knows.

[BrandonJXN]

Does anyone have any new renderings or models?

[bobcat]

Anyone going to this? Attendance will probably be low because of the rain.

[Wright Concept]

Great ideas that seem obvious yet it seems as though no one at City Hall gets it. i wish we had a way to talk to hahn face to face. maybe LABeauty can bring it up to his contacts at work or others he knows.

It isn't just Hahn, it's Councilwoman Perry and County Supervisor Molina that would need to talk to as well.
:cool:

I'll be attending the one in East LA because I have a good feeling Supervisor Molina or one of her deputies will be there.

[LongBeachUrbanist]

Remember everybody, parking is available right at the Music Center. It's important to show up if you care about this critical Downtown project . If you can, RSVP at http://www.grandavenuecommittee.org/calendar.php.

My wife, daughter and I will be there, rain or shine. So I guess the fewer people show up, the more likely I will be able to give comments. That is, if they will be taking comments. I don't know what the format will be like at this meeting. :sly

[bobcat]

Cool, take notes and give us a complete report.

[LongBeachUrbanist]

Just came from the meeting at the Music Center. The plans, in their early stages, are as follows:

;) The part of the project that would open first would include the parcels between 1st and 2nd, along with the park. These were the focus of tonight's meeting. The parcels west of Grand would open later.
;) They emphasized they have no control over the County buildings, although they seemed to favor their removal and seemed willing to design the park around their eventual elimination.
;) Civic center park would be integrated across the three blocks, using lots of integrating design elements, such as path design, scenic steps and view locations.
;) The three blocks of the park would be programmed separately: cultural/recreational uses, including a "great lawn", for the County building block; public gardens for the center block; and civic uses (like farmer's market, marathon start/finish) across from City Hall. Each segment would have active areas, including cafes, quiet areas, and lots of amenities.
;) The parking under the park would remain, but the entrances would be redesigned so they wouldn't interfere with pedestrian flow. (Yeah, I've heard that one before!!!)
;) The main parcels (between 1st and 2nd Streets) would have four towers, between 20-35 stories each. Two would be residential, one would be hotel + condo, and the other (at First/Hill) would be office. Residential ~2000 units.
;) The pedestrian flow would be along paseos forming an 'X' through the two parcels, with the center of the 'X' in the form of a pedestrian bridge crossing Olive. They promised that adequate connections would be made to Olive Street, but I wasn't so convinced.
;) The ground floor seemed like it could be very lively. Not just towers, but lots of retail at the street level. As mentioned by others on this forum, they apparently are already working to secure retailers for this project.
;) The towers were lower and narrower than I expected. Also, they tended to be oblique to the street. That said, it was hard to get a feel due to the strange angles of the renderings. We were told these concepts were preliminary, as architects have not yet begun work in any detail. Also, there seemed to be interest in making one of the towers an 'icon'.
;) Lots of talk about 'transparency', 'flow', 'airiness'. The East Coast architects seem to have been persuaded by the West Coast people that we are interested more in airiness than density. That said, they frequently cited New York and Barcelona when it came to influences and specific ideas. From my perspective, that's a good thing!!!

Overall, nice job, but of course I didn't like everything. I'd like to see less 'light' and more urbanism. Less enclosed-mall, more street presence. Less pedestrian bridge, more pedestrian sidewalks. Less isolation, more connectivity.

I especially liked the paseo, the public gardens, the "great lawn", and the retail components. This thing's supposed to open in 2009...I can't wait!

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

Thanks for the notes. Just curious, how many people at the meeting and what were some of the public comments. Im dissapointed in the floor counts for the towers though, hopefully they will go up because you cant really have a Iconic tower that is 25 stories tall.

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

Also, did they ive a timeline? i think i heard they were gonna break ground in early '06. Did they mention any retailers specificly or did they mention what kind of retail and businesses they wanted to bring in?

[LongBeachUrbanist]

I'm rarely a good judge of number of people, but I'd guess around 150 showed up. Who knows though, I didn't count.

They broke us up into five groups to take/deflect our comments. Then each group had one participant report the group's issues to the meeting at large. Brigham (LABeauty) spoke for his group, and I spoke for mine.

People generally agreed that the massing of the towers wasn't overdone. In fact, some of us definitely thought that the towers should be taller.

Connections seemed to be a big issue for people. Pedestrian connections, visual connections to the rest of the city, etc. There was also the justifiable fear by some (myself included) that we would repeat mistakes of past Downtown developments. And of course, there were a few Bunker Hill tower residents that didn't want their views of the mountains blocked. (Boo-hoo!!!)

The timeline I saw had the design process completed later this year, with grand opening in 2009. I don't know how current that timeline is, but it was printed on the materials we received today.

The only retailer I heard mentioned specifically was a "Whole Foods" type of market at the street level of Hill Street. That said, there was lots of talk about cafes, restaurants, etc.

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

Thank you very much. Glad to hear that ~150 people showed up.

[yeah215]

I wanted to know if any of these materials that you received included any renderings or massings. Do you know where these materials will be posted. Will the website be updated? Also, is there any way that you could post the materials so we can read them? Thanks.

[LongBeachUrbanist]

The document I have, entitled "Reimagining Grand Avenue - Project Overview", doesn't have any specifics about the plans. I can tell it was produced after Aug 2004, but other than that, it's not of much use beyond what you'd find on the website.

They had large-size renderings on easels at the meeting. These give a better idea of where they're going conceptually with their plans. I'm sure these renderings will be at the other meetings planned throughout the region over the next week or two.

[LAmetroman]

^ LongBeachUrbanist, what group were you part of?

From the renderings, I saw the tallest tower somewhere in between California Plaza 1 and 2. They seemed to be all residential, with one having a possibility of government/residential. Also, my group's leader (from Related), almost gave up on First Street, saying it was too busy and too wide for retail.

Over all, I thought the work was very segmented. The park was one project, the 'paseo' another project, and the parcels west of Grand Avenue almost an afterthought.

I wished to see some sort of uniftying concept/element. The representatives of Related seemed to push residential and neighborhood residential, something that would not provide for a focus of Los Angeles.

[Wright Concept]

^ LongBeachUrbanist, what group were you part of?

From the renderings, I saw the tallest tower somewhere in between California Plaza 1 and 2. They seemed to be all residential, with one having a possibility of government/residential. Also, my group's leader (from Related), almost gave up on First Street, saying it was too busy and too wide for retail.

Over all, I thought the work was very segmented. The park was one project, the 'paseo' another project, and the parcels west of Grand Avenue almost an afterthought.

I wished to see some sort of uniftying concept/element. The representatives of Related seemed to push residential and neighborhood residential, something that would not provide for a focus of Los Angeles.

This sounds like the same crap they've done in NYC with the Columbus Circle development it's an internal mall with a Whole Foods on the Ground Floor, I believe other retail elements from the Columbus Circle will be present or an exact carbon copy in this development.
This sounds the same things they did at the October meeting. Did anyone push for trying to integrate the MTA/Downtown Connector into the project? If not it's cool, I'll just mention this at the East LA meeting, hopefully Supervisor Molina or a representative of hers will be there.

It sounds like they are just going through the motions and pushing the residential aspect because this is what will make them money yet provide an incentive to create an actual neighborhood. If this was truely a Civic Imaging project, there would be representatives from MOCA, Walt Disney Concert Hall, Wells Fargo Center and California Plaza all working together AND there would actually be meetings happening instead of all of them being Cancelled.

[LongBeachUrbanist]

LaMetroMan, I was in Group 2, the guy with the blue shirt and the little girl that talked.

I agree that the project didn't have the kind of focus I would have liked. It seemed like everybody was focused on residential, residential, residential, plus retail and local park...as opposed to a bold statement of LA, one that would be a draw for tourists from around the world.

Of course, all of these things are key components. Lots of residential and retail, and an improved park, are going to help make Downtown work. But what we also need is a bold stroke, like a grand tower or bridge...something that will announce LA to the world.

I'm sorry to hear your leader has given up on First Street. First street's problem isn't that it's too wide, but that it's surrounded by government ghetto. Yet another reason to keep govt bldgs like the Police HQ north of First, IMO. BTW, I wonder if they know that the First Street Redesign project has been approved and will start soon?

I specifically asked about Grand Avenue, since I thought part of the project was a streetscape redesign along Grand down to the Library. My leader said that was no longer in the scope of the project. Hmmmm..... :sly:

In fact, the organizers had very little to say about specific connections from the W/Q parcels (the main ones) to the surrounding streets. Of course, when people started saying they wanted more connections, they assured us that connections would be there. Hmmmm.... :sly:

Of course we have to understand that the developer needs to turn a profit. But we cannot allow them to make the same old mistakes again. World class teams of developers were competing for this thing, so we need to hold this team to account.

[LongBeachUrbanist]

One more thing, the budget I keep seeing is: $900 million private money for the project, and $300 million public money for infrastructure improvements.

Of course, much of the $300 mill will go the park. But I kept hearing this attitude of "this or that is outside the scope of the project". We've got a third of billion in public money going into this thing!!! So we've got a right as taxpayers to push for good pedestrian connections to the surrounding neighborhoods!!!

PV, please push this when you go to the Eastside meeting. If you can, find out specifics on the connections, and make sure the message gets across that we want density, connections, and a bold stroke!!!

[LongBeachUrbanist]

:crazy:
:crazy: :crazy:
:crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

I've got it...A BOLD VISION!!!!

A vast bridge, starting at the W/Q parcels, going over First Street, over the County Building, and ending in the park!!!!!

:crazy: :crazy: :crazy:
:crazy: :crazy:
:crazy:

That would be f-ing awesome!!! It would be iconic, beautiful and functional, all at the same time! It would be the ultimate tourist attraction!!! People would be talking about it everywhere, and would come downtown just to go over the bridge!!!

It would solve the whole "how do you get into the park" problem. At the same time, Related would love it because it will bring people to their development.

Can you imagine it?

I'm not talking a crappy ped-bridge, BTW. I'm talking about something beautiful. Think about the Golden Gate Bridge, the Brooklyn Bridge, the Eiffel Tower. With views of the entire city. WOW!!!

Plus, over the long run, I think it would eventually bring about a great hue and cry to tear the County Eyesores down!!!

(BTW, seriously think about it. The more it rolls around in my head, the more I like the idea!!!)

[Wright Concept]

One more thing, the budget I keep seeing is: $900 million private money for the project, and $300 million public money for infrastructure improvements.

Of course, much of the $300 mill will go the park. But I kept hearing this attitude of "this or that is outside the scope of the project". We've got a third of billion in public money going into this thing!!! So we've got a right as taxpayers to push for good pedestrian connections to the surrounding neighborhoods!!!

With this $300 Million Dollars in public funds, Does anyone know if they are calculating the FEMA/insurance appraisal of the buildings? If this is the case then there might be more to the pot.

PV, please push this when you go to the Eastside meeting. If you can, find out specifics on the connections, and make sure the message gets across that we want density, connections, and a bold stroke!!!

Will do. This might be the way to integrate an underground pedway connecting the two parcels across Grand with public transit access, since this stuff is in the preliminary stages and there have been no regular public meetings:cool:

Plus the arguement that First Street is too wide and busy, is pure b***s..hit, the main factor may be topography where the hill inhibits some pedestrian flow, if they place something on the ground floor wraping around both sites like a Mobius strip to take advantage of the topography and its site. I thought activity and busyness would be perfect for stuff on the ground floor.
This would actually bring the office dwellers during the lunch time and during the day and the concert Hall/Music Center folks at night and help sustain the development until more move into the tower.

This why I think the little Civic Park they are considering on the old CalTrans Site will actually help the Grand Park,First Street and Grand Avenue because there will be an incentive to invite the ground floor to create this continuous pedestrian flow. Strecthing from City Hall to Disney Concert hall and can strecth further in all directions and actually started talking to the existing stakeholders such as California Plaza, MOCA, LA Times(on first Street) this would be a true partnership.

Again I feel they are just inviting the public in as a PR ploy to say yes, this a public project but all along they are only focused on consumer demographics rather than actual civic/social need or experience emphasising the Private part of the project.

Because I made the same comments about the government facilities around the Civic Center at the October Meeting and they replied "we have no control over that"

[LongBeachUrbanist]

Here's a poorly-drawn concept of the plan. I figure it would imitate the style of other LA bridges, such as the First Street Bridge, but would be much lighter, since it doesn't need to support cars.

http://image24.webshots.com/25/9/33/56/281093356HgrbTi_ph.jpg

(I think I'm wasting way too much time on this. If anybody thinks it's a crappy concept, feel free to let me know. I can take it!!!)

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

let it go :)

[ocman]

Who are these "architects" that are currently working on the projects? The losing team had Frank Gehry, Norman Foster, and Zaha Hadid. This winning team, Related, drops Thom Mayne, so who the heck is designing the whole thing that has any bit of world talent?

I was really REALLY hoping for a design competition, and hoping that that they don't completely leave it up to Related's architects who are probably busy with the WTC project.

I do agree that there should be a huge focus on residential because they will make up the pedestrian component that frequent the avenue.

From what LongBeach has stated, the ideas seem extremely conventional. But I'm mainly worried about architecture. Hopefully they have some starchitect that they have in mind to come and work for them. I'm very worried that, being a new york company, they may not really understand the importance of this project to the people who live in downtown LA.

[Wright Concept]

Here's a poorly-drawn concept of the plan. I figure it would imitate the style of other LA bridges, such as the First Street Bridge, but would be much lighter, since it doesn't need to support cars

(I think I'm wasting way too much time on this. If anybody thinks it's a crappy concept, feel free to let me know. I can take it!!!)

I thought the whole point was to bring folks onto the street, not creating another internal element that's disconnected from the rest of the area. If you really want a "bridge" How about making the East side of the Grand Avenue sidewalk wider by about 5 to 8 feet and removing the parking ramp into a grassy knoll in which connects the sidewalk to the Park.

[LosAngelesBeauty]

^ LongBeachUrbanist, what group were you part of?

From the renderings, I saw the tallest tower somewhere in between California Plaza 1 and 2. They seemed to be all residential, with one having a possibility of government/residential. Also, my group's leader (from Related), almost gave up on First Street, saying it was too busy and too wide for retail.

Over all, I thought the work was very segmented. The park was one project, the 'paseo' another project, and the parcels west of Grand Avenue almost an afterthought.

I wished to see some sort of uniftying concept/element. The representatives of Related seemed to push residential and neighborhood residential, something that would not provide for a focus of Los Angeles.

This sounds like the same crap they've done in NYC with the Columbus Circle development it's an internal mall with a Whole Foods on the Ground Floor, I believe other retail elements from the Columbus Circle will be present or an exact carbon copy in this development.
This sounds the same things they did at the October meeting. Did anyone push for trying to integrate the MTA/Downtown Connector into the project? If not it's cool, I'll just mention this at the East LA meeting, hopefully Supervisor Molina or a representative of hers will be there.

It sounds like they are just going through the motions and pushing the residential aspect because this is what will make them money yet provide an incentive to create an actual neighborhood. If this was truely a Civic Imaging project, there would be representatives from MOCA, Walt Disney Concert Hall, Wells Fargo Center and California Plaza all working together AND there would actually be meetings happening instead of all of them being Cancelled.


I specifically emphasized the Downtown Connector. I did so for my focus group and also to the general audience. It is something that is incredibly important and will make or break this project like the County buildings.

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

couple questions. how was the reaction to the downtown connector idea? attendance? and also anything new come out of this meeting and were there any renderings?

[LongBeachUrbanist]

Daily News, 23 February 2005

Developers unveil vision for downtown

Public hearings scheduled on Grand plan

By Troy Anderson, Staff Writer

Developers on Tuesday unveiled their first scale model of a $1.2 billion downtown project to transform the area around the Walt Disney Concert Hall into a bustling nightlife district featuring gardens and envisioned as the city's "great new gathering place."
Roof gardens would be installed atop towers housing condos and shops, while ground-level gardens would line a pedestrian walkway leading down Bunker Hill away from the concert hall and curving around into L.A.'s new "Grand Park."

Public hearings on the conceptual plans will be held Tuesday in Van Nuys and on other days throughout the county.

"Some of the big ideas we've already gotten from the public is that this has got to be the single place where the city of Los Angeles comes together for its celebrations," said Phillip J. Enquist, the project's chief planner.

"The Chicago Millennium Park, which we were involved with, went from being freight yards to a parking lot and from a parking lot to really the new civic heart of the city." In contrast, in Los Angeles "we are starting way in advance of that with the county mall already a park and this truly can be the city's festival grounds."

In December, the project developer, The Related Companies of California, released the results of the first public hearings on the plan.

At those hearings, people said they wanted to see an urban district with an icon like the Eiffel Tower or the Barcelona Fish -- a landmark Spanish structure created by famed Los Angeles-based architect Frank Gehry -- to attract visitors.

At the unveiling of the table-sized model Tuesday, developers said they would like the area to feature a variety of works of art and landscaped gardens among condo and office towers and various restaurants, shops and a boutique cinema. But no one mentioned any large symbol that would define L.A. like the Eiffel Tower does Paris.

At those meetings in October and November, some people suggested that developers enlarge the proposed park between City Hall and the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power headquarters by relocating the earthquake-damaged county Hall of Administration and Stanley Mosk Courthouse buildings.

The county has been in litigation since the 1994 Northridge Earthquake, attempting to collect $100 million from various insurance companies to repair or replace the county hall. Court officials are also interested in eventually repairing or replacing the courthouse.

"In the future, if these two buildings leave, we have the ability to do some very exciting things," Enquist said. "The first one is that the park would expand to (the Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels) and Cathedral Square. And then we'd get the cathedral, the full Music Center and Disney Hall surrounding all this open space."

Preliminary proposals call for the creation of a 16-acre park in the Civic Center as well as 2,000 to 2,400 housing units, a large banquet/event facility and 600,000 square feet of office-tower space.

Some members of the Grand Avenue Authority, the public entity overseeing it, have expressed concern about where they will obtain the $300 million needed to develop the park, underground parking structures and street improvements, saying they don't want taxpayers to get stuck with the tab.

"There are a series of public benefits that will be embedded in this plan," said William A. Witte, president of The Related Companies. "Twenty percent of the housing will be affordable housing.

"And part of our task is to construct a project that is self-sustaining, not only revenues from the project to help finance the park, but that the park is not turned over to a public agency without it being self-sustaining financially."

Troy Anderson, (213) 974-8985 troy.anderson@dailynews.com

[LongBeachUrbanist]

...people said they wanted to see an urban district with an icon like the Eiffel Tower or the Barcelona Fish -- a landmark Spanish structure created by famed Los Angeles-based architect Frank Gehry -- to attract visitors.

At the unveiling of the table-sized model Tuesday, developers said they would like the area to feature a variety of works of art and landscaped gardens among condo and office towers and various restaurants, shops and a boutique cinema. But no one mentioned any large symbol that would define L.A. like the Eiffel Tower does Paris.

This needs to be emphasized: it was a good plan, but a conventional one. There was nothing iconic in the plans. I can see it being a very good anchor for Downtown's northern communities, and even possibly a regional attraction. Lord knows downtown needs this. But I saw nothing, other than a little talk about the Eiffel Tower and Gehry's Barcelona Fish, to suggest they were aiming at a world audience.

[colemonkee]

^That's probably the most important point. Perhaps Related should look at Millenium Park in Chicago. It doesn't have "city-defining" icons on the sheer scale of, say, the Eiffel Tower or Sears Tower, but it does have several cultural (the Gehry bandshell, the "bean" sculpture, etc) and architectural (the Gehry footbridge) amenities that have made the park not only a huge success for brining in large crowds of people and events, but attracting tourists from around the world. I've read lots of posts of people living in Chicago who talk to tourists that visit Chicago with specific plans to see the park.

Grand Ave. has that potential, and from the plan, it looks like they are moving to a smaller-scale development (meaning no huge towers). This is fine, so long as they include the cultural and architectural details that will make the park (and the surrounding developments) a success not only for Angelenos, but for tourists as well.

Perhaps at the next meeting, some of you can bring up the success of Millenium Park and see if any of those cultural and architectural features would be applicable to the Grand Ave. plan. I'd like to hear Related's response to that.

[LAmetroman]

This needs to be emphasized: it was a good plan, but a conventional one. There was nothing iconic in the plans. I can see it being a very good anchor for Downtown's northern communities, and even possibly a regional attraction.

I think the plan could be considered good if it were places elsewhere in downtown. Yet, its location near the financial district, along Grand Avenue, near the Music Center, future civic park, etc. should require us to raise the bar and ask for something great.

This "Grand Avenue Project" seems to have a couple flaws. First, it is not on a grand scope. Second, there is no focus on Grand Avenue itself. It seems that the vast majority of work presented thus far is concentrated on this paseo and how to overcome the topography of the parcels.

Residential/retail, residential/retail, residential/retail. Is anyone getting a little tired of this concept? If I live above a Starbucks, does that make my neighborhood a regional destination?

The project needs to incoroporate more institutional, hospitality, and entertainment uses. The land should not only be compatible with its surroundings, it should complement them. Another large hotel to attract tourists a large multi-screen theater complex to hold the crowds downtown Los Angeles is capable of attracting.

Last, I was trying to think of an element that would take advantage of the site and attract people. I then thought of the water features one sees at The Grove and Bellagio is Las Vegas. Many cities have water gardens in their downtown areas, but what about a water show. Something East of Grand Avenue between First Street and Temple with access to the park provided underneath. One could view the show from either side of Grand, the Music Center Plaza, or even the park until you get to City Hall. It could be more conventional during the work day yet change to attract crowds at night and on weekends. Lighting would be included and could always change to celebrate holidays such as Valentine's Day, St. Patrick's Day, Cinco De Mayo, Fourth of July, and Christmas.

[LongBeachUrbanist]

I like the watershow idea. However, the Music Center across Grand has a set of dancing fountains, and the DWP HQ on the next block has several huge fountains. Add to that Cal Plaza's watercourt and smaller fountains, the falls along Library Steps, etc., and, well, you get the picture.

Don't get me wrong, I like dancing water fountains. I just think that concept's been kind of played out, especially on Bunker Hill.

[LAmetroman]

^That is very true, there are many water features around Bunker Hill. The music center's fountain is beautiful, but few get to enjoy it since it is isolated from the street.

Yet, I was thinking of something much more grand, along the lines of Bellagio in Las Vegas. At street level, instead of being on The Strip, it would be along Grand Avenue. Something that could be seen easily from the Music Center all the way to City Hall. Something with a "Wow!" factor that I think is clearly missing from the plan presented earlier this week. Something that would make residents WANT to travel from the San Fernando Valley, San Gabriel Valley, and the Westside.

Think of how the fountains in European and Latin American cities work as meeting spots and social centers. Few American cities have fountains in urban cores that work in a similar manner.

Hell, I will just start my own Grand Avenue Fountain Fund. If I let you build your bridge, can I build my fountain?:D

[DJM19]

Im dissapointed the buildings arent larger. I thought their original idea called for a much larger building.

[bobcat]

I'd really like to have a look at any renderings before I can form a real opinion. That said, it's disappointing the towers aren't bigger, but I don't have a problem with that, per se. I understand that Related tends to be strong at developing retail destinations, and this might be a good one. However, as other people have pointed out, this project is extremely high profile and needs to be truly iconic in nature. It needs to be something you can put on a postcard. For that to happen the retail needs to be pretty damn impressive. We're talking Rodeo freaking Drive, here!


If I let you build your bridge, can I build my fountain?

The bridge and fountain can go right beside my 300 ft tall angel statue! :D

[Wright Concept]

^ LongBeachUrbanist, what group were you part of?

From the renderings, I saw the tallest tower somewhere in between California Plaza 1 and 2. They seemed to be all residential, with one having a possibility of government/residential. Also, my group's leader (from Related), almost gave up on First Street, saying it was too busy and too wide for retail.

Over all, I thought the work was very segmented. The park was one project, the 'paseo' another project, and the parcels west of Grand Avenue almost an afterthought.

I wished to see some sort of uniftying concept/element. The representatives of Related seemed to push residential and neighborhood residential, something that would not provide for a focus of Los Angeles.

This sounds like the same crap they've done in NYC with the Columbus Circle development it's an internal mall with a Whole Foods on the Ground Floor, I believe other retail elements from the Columbus Circle will be present or an exact carbon copy in this development.
This sounds the same things they did at the October meeting. Did anyone push for trying to integrate the MTA/Downtown Connector into the project? If not it's cool, I'll just mention this at the East LA meeting, hopefully Supervisor Molina or a representative of hers will be there.

It sounds like they are just going through the motions and pushing the residential aspect because this is what will make them money yet provide an incentive to create an actual neighborhood. If this was truely a Civic Imaging project, there would be representatives from MOCA, Walt Disney Concert Hall, Wells Fargo Center and California Plaza all working together AND there would actually be meetings happening instead of all of them being Cancelled.


I specifically emphasized the Downtown Connector. I did so for my focus group and also to the general audience. It is something that is incredibly important and will make or break this project like the County buildings.

The meeting was ok, a good turnout from East LA. Suoervisor Molina wasn't there but Diego Cardosa from the MTA was there, since he lives right there and is the project manager of the East LA Gold Line and Nick Pastourous, who was one of the key guys who got the subway built in the first place, was there and I mentioned this project and everyone was very enthusiastic about it in particular of integrating this project and station into the development. I made some flyers about the project so they can think about it and got some contact information.

The key thing Nick said was to get this to the attention of the Officials and to get this project back onto MTA's official Long Range Transit Plan.

So I'll pound this thing into MTA board at many board meetings to come.

Here's the flyer that I sent out:

http://tinypic.com/233b7c

[LAmetroman]

The tower heights weren't too much of a surprise with me. One North elevation had the tallest tower (just east of Grand) between CA Plaza 1 and 2. At approximately 200m, it would be easy to have 60-62 residential floors.

People did mention the complete access from all points of downtown. Related likes to focus on connections with the Civic Center, but gives little regard to points south and west. I wish the parcels west of Grand were given larger priority instead of 30 floor residential towers. I would love to see a mixed use tower with a 21st Century design to flow into Walt Disney Concert Hall.

[LosAngelesBeauty]

HMM, thank god this isn't even close to the final product. We have a lot of ideas to present at the next meeting don't we ? :)

[LosAngelesBeauty]

HMM, thank god this isn't even close to the final product. We have a lot of ideas to present at the next meeting don't we ? :)

[LongBeachUrbanist]

After thinking about the Grand Avenue plans for the past few days, I think I may have been too harsh. For one thing, this one project has to satisfy so many people and do so many things, it's a real challenge to do everything and also stand out iconically. For another thing, the plans are very preliminary. Also, these people are professionals that probably know what they're doing, and have done this thing before. This thing has to work or their reputation in the industry will suffer. Anyway, I'm sure they know a thing or two about developing a site that I don't know.

I think what they have done so far is tried to sketch out, generally and without much detail, where things are going to go. They've designated a specific use for each corner of the W/Q project area (the names are my own):

"Iconic Tower", First/Hill.
Distinctive office tower, boldly announcing entrance to Financial District.
Walking connection to "Great Lawn" and "Public Gardens" areas of the park.
Situated above Metro station, opposite Civic Center.

"Grand Plaza", First/Grand.
Plaza entrance themed around nightlife.
Restaurants and entertainment venues are featured.
Architecture reflects Disney Hall, Music Center.

"Grand Hotel", Second/Grand.
High-rise hotel in the middle of LA's art/music center.
Semi-private: close to everything, yet away from bustle of 1st Street.
Activates Grand Avenue by bringing tourists.

"Neighborhood Plaza", Second/Hill.
Plaza entrance with more of a neighborhood theme.
Grocery store and other residential amenities are here.

So what you have is well-defined uses, connecting up with the local neighborhoods. Then everything in between will be designed to connect these corners together.

http://www.downtownnews.com/content/articles/2005/02/28/news/news01.jpg

When I talked before about lack of connections, I was referring to physical and visual connections. But it seems like maybe Related is thinking more about connections of land use, which may in the end be even more important. The strategy is to start the planning process by considering how to create a good circulation of people through the area. Ultimately, this strategy will probably be successful because, beyond simply thinking about attracting lots of people, they really are constructing a dynamic pump for northern DTLA that will circulate thousands of people throughout itself and the surrounding neighborhoods.

[towersla]

Since attending the meeting, there is a queasy, uneasy feeling running about in my gut. Perhaps most surprising to me, upon viewing the renderings and the model, is how little of this project is truly at street level. If the proposed bridge over Grand Avenue onto the Disney Concert Hall is a possibility, I wonder if the visionaries are short on vision. Why plan for more rooftop gardens, glorified pedways, throughout the project? Was nothing learned from the fortress architecture of the 60's?

[LongBeachUrbanist]

There will be a pedway over Olive, which I raised a concern about. But I don't remember hearing about a pedway over Grand.

[LAmetroman]

^Yeah, there was a bridge over Grand.

As much as many people would like to put faith into Related, it is very easy to compromise good urban design with conservative plans. I think Grand Avenue will be an "ok" project, but my standards are much lower after seeing the work to date.

Has anyone noticed the lack of daytime activities in the proposal? You have the "Live, Work, Play" theory that is very popular right now in downtown areas across the country. With Grand Avenuen, you have the Live part, but the Work part? And, what about the Play part?

[LAMetroGuy]

Based on what I've seen from Related... I believe that the vision that Forest City had was more agressive and visually more interesting. At least they visualized the county buildings GONE!

Related's vision of Grand Avenue:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v600/rpulido/Models/news01.jpg

Forest City's vison of Grand Avenue:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v600/rpulido/Models/untitled.jpg

Who knows... I wish we could have seen them all!

[citywatch]

Since attending the meeting, there is a queasy, uneasy feeling running about in my gut....Was nothing learned from the fortress architecture of the 60's?
I read the blogsite below & thought it shows another example of almost all projs being vulnerable to design mistakes. Here's a large part of the street frontage of the famous Museum of Modern Art in NYC, which just opened its new $400-plus million remodeling job:

http://citycomfortsblog.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/img_0093.JPG

Even a hotshot museum can screw certain things up, in spite of having a huge budget, & in spite of being so famous they can charge visitors $20 a pop, since their premiere several wks ago, & still attract huge crowds. (http://citycomfortsblog.typepad.com/cities/2005/02/not_even_a_ipre.html)

IOW, if ppl who should know better about fine design & who supposedly are the most knowledgable about good urban devlpt will overlook basic details, then we should be really queasy & uneasy about what Related & its architects, one of whom doesn't have a great reputation to begin with, may do to Grand Ave.

[LongBeachUrbanist]

A book called "City Comforts" outlines three simple rules that make a space urban:

1. Build to the sidewalk (i.e., property line).
2. Make the building front "permeable" (i.e., no blank walls).
3. Prohibit parking lots in front of the building.

When developers come to Downtown LA, they should immediately be issued a copy of this book.

http://citycomfortsblog.typepad.com/cities/urb-anim-illo/urb-to-sub-3.gif

[Wright Concept]

A book called "City Comforts" outlines three simple rules that make a space urban:

1. Build to the sidewalk (i.e., property line).
2. Make the building front "permeable" (i.e., no blank walls).
3. Prohibit parking lots in front of the building.

When developers come to Downtown LA, they should immediately be issued a copy of this book.

http://citycomfortsblog.typepad.com/cities/urb-anim-illo/urb-to-sub-3.gif

Don't forget a copy of the building codes and zoning which will determine the amount of parking per square foot space.

But here's a funny thing is that most buildings in LA follow these exact rules and yet no one is drawn to them. I say that to pose these questions; Are these rules out of date? or Are they the exact rules that cause this obvious isolation and segregation?
Is there a rule to suggest subtly breaking or allowing room for tolerance in a building or zoning code for mixed use developments?.

There was a post a while back in regards to the Medallion Development and the parking structure that was located near-by. Some didn't like the Parking structure being there but I thought this is the compromise and sometimes the realization when you turn parking lots into residential/urban loft living, you have to figure out where to house the stepchild called the automobile.

[LongBeachUrbanist]

The building codes in LA are a disaster. Parking development Downtown should be capped like in most cities, not mandated.

The problem I had with Medallion was that the parking garage was right on Los Angeles Street, violating rule number 3. Now granted, better on Los Angeles than on Main, but it is still dead parking space fronting the street.

Roughly speaking, the author says that a space is "urban" exactly when it follows these three rules. In this case, an "urban" space is basically a dense, lively pedestrian-oriented space.

That doesn't mean these standards are sufficient to make the pedestrian experience enjoyable, or to draw people to Downtown. It just means that it will put people on the street, where they can come into contact and do urban things.

I can't think of any building Downtown that meets these three standards yet fails to create pedestrian-oriented activity. On the other hand, examples of failing to meet these standards are everywhere. Here are a few examples and the rule(s) they violate:

* New Caltrans building (2)
* Cal Plaza (1)
* County Courthouse (2)
* 1100 Wilshire (3)

Now most buildings along Broadway follow every rule, and thus are "urban", meaning the area is lively like a city ought to be. Does that mean Broadway has no problems? No. But at least its not a dead zone like most of the Civic Center, which violates (2) in almost every building.

New York, Paris and Tokyo are vibrant cities because for the most part their built-environment puts people on the sidewalk. These are basic things that need to be done to inspire pedestrian "urban" experience. Making that experience enjoyable is a different story.

[LongBeachUrbanist]

BTW, the project designers are calling the two-short-block retail walk a 'paseo'. I wonder if they understand what a paseo is.

A paseo is a traditional after-dinner walk that occurs in Spain and most Latin-American cities. The Latin-American city accomodates this tradition by having a long pedestrian boulevard, also called a 'paseo', for this walk. In the evenings, these large promenades are filled with people, walking, talking and relaxing at the end of the day.

The paseo does have many restaurants, bodegas, shops, etc., but the main property of the paseo is that it is a long, broad, beautiful boulevard for walking off your dinner.

Can you imagine a real paseo in Los Angeles? Wow, how cool would that be!!!

The walkway in this project is not a paseo. Not even close. It is a dense shopping street. Barcelona's Ramblas is not two-blocks long!

The original concept of the Grand Avenue Project was to design something like a paseo along Grand Avenue. It would have had wide sidewalks and a broad walkable median filled with vendors and pedestrian activity, all the way down Grand over a bridge to the Library. But, let's just say, the scope of the project has changed.

Let's be clear about one thing: the term 'paseo' is being used here strictly for marketing the project. Let the buyer beware!

[colemonkee]

^actually the term 'paseo' in LA is more accurately defined as the red 1989 Toyota Paseo that just changed lanes in front of you without using their turn signal.:D

on another note. damn, the forum is fast now!!!

[LongBeachUrbanist]

It is fast, unlike the Toyota Paseo! ;)

[jessie_sanchez]

Call me crazy if u want, but i don't like the renderings of Grand Ave. It looks too plain for something that's going to cost $1,000,000,000. I think the other renderings stood out a lot more, even the buildings looked much more interesting.

[LongBeachUrbanist]

From Downtown News, 3/21/2005:

Moment of Truth for Grand Avenue
Upcoming Talks Will Make or Break the Billion Dollar Project
By Sam Hall Kaplan

The promising proposal for Grand Avenue to lend Downtown a distinctive center and Los Angeles a focal point is about to enter what could be its most challenging chapter to date.

New York-based Related Companies has waddled through an intense competition to become the designated developer of the project site crowning Bunker Hill. The firm has whipped up a frothy master plan and wended its way through a public outreach process. But now, Related Companies must begin sharpening its pencils and crunching the numbers.

Expect a moment of truth to occur within the next month, when Related must price out its ambitious mixed-use project, orchestrated by the design firm of Skidmore Owings & Merrill, and negotiate a lease for the land with Grand Avenue's Joint Powers Authority (JPA), the panel of officials that will approve the project.

Rough estimates based on the preliminary plans for construction range from $1 billion to $1.5 billion. This includes the costs of 2,000-plus units of housing in a cluster of towers rising up to 50 stories, a multi-level retail development of 300,000 square feet, a 275-room high-end hotel, a 4,000-space parking garage, and the redevelopment of the 16-acre park between the Music Center and City Hall.

Lending the project value and verve is the guiding design principle to be "bold, urban and dense," as expressed by Related's Bill Witte.

But is it buildable? Can Related expect a reasonable return on their investment, time, effort and risk, or is this just going to be another grandiose endeavor that ends as another architecture and design obituary? Will it be another page in the saga of Bunker Hill and unbuilt L.A.?

Much will depend on the upcoming private negotiations between Related and the JPA. This is where the future of Downtown will be shaped, and not, as is commonly believed, in such relics as the editorial boardroom of the Los Angeles Times or the dining room of the California Club.

The New York-based developer already has received an extension of its so-called "exclusive agreement" to negotiate the plans and lease from the five-member JPA that includes County Supervisor Gloria Molina and City Councilwoman Jan Perry. The extension for about a month was not unusual, given the complex project, especially one that will be built on prime public parcels at a time of escalating construction prices.

However, these considerations do hint at problems that could create a major bump in the road to a grander Grand Avenue.

When the redevelopment of the four parcels (totaling eight acres) atop Bunker Hill was first considered several years ago, government bean counters expressed hopes that the plan would pursue the "the highest and best" use and that the leases would attract top-dollar rates. In effect, they hoped it would become a cash cow for the cash-strapped city and county.

The plan certainly indicates that desired use, given its proposed array of high-end retail, restaurants and housing. All point to a pricey product designed to appeal to a well-heeled demographic, in competition with Century City, Beverly Hills and the Wilshire corridor of Westwood.

But to the probable disappointment of a few bottom-line bureaucrats, some of the dollars generated on Grand Avenue that would have gone into the general public till undoubtedly will be siphoned off to underwrite the redesign and revitalization of the now forlorn 16-acre civic park.

That could cost $100 million or more, depending on whether the earthquake-compromised County buildings now edging the site are demolished, the park expanded and the parking below reconstructed. Indeed, the city and county may just have to kick in a few dollars.

The leases also could be affected by the city requirement that 20% of the projected 2,000 units, both rental and condo, be "affordable."

This in theory is an admirable goal, but one wonders whether, given the high cost of high-rise construction, redirecting subsidies to less expensive low- and mid-rise developments actually would generate more of the needed units - without compromising the value of the prime public parcels.

Then there is the pressure on the developer, as well as the city and county, to properly launch the project to maximize its public relations impact. That surely will take some juggling of the finances, which also will affect the risk for the developer, and in turn the lease agreement.

This all puts pressure on the negotiations.

If Related falters, waiting in the wings is the Cleveland-based Forest City Development team, which was a close runner up in the competition last year to gain the exclusive right to negotiate. Its plans for Grand Avenue are sitting on the shelf in the company's active L.A. office, and only need to be dusted off by the ever-willing and anxious team.

The only thing lost in the process would be time and, of course, the public's confidence that the JPA, the city and the county will not let politics and personalities get in the way of an agreement that will assure the project's viability, so that it actually will be built.

Kaplan is the author of L.A. Lost and Found. He is the former design critic for the Los Angeles Times and a former Emmy Award-winning reporter for FOX 11.

[Bernd]

It's strange that Kaplan should harp on the cost of rehabilitating the county mall park. That part of the project is such a no-brainer that I can't imagine the city and county reaching an equitable deal if Related comes through with financing for the rest of the project.

My main concern at this time is not the park but rather the SOM designs for the new buildings. I know we all want to see something bold and exciting.....so let's see it!!

[BrandonJXN]

C'mon people. Lets be optimistic about Grand Ave. I know I am.

[LongBeachUrbanist]

I go back and forth. I think with a $1-1.5 billion dollars there's a huge opportunity to create a project that is both money-making and stimulating to Downtown. At the same time, the history of DTLA is a history of bad development and planning decisions.

So I guess I'll reserve judgement until around 2020, when the effects of the project will be obvious!!!

[LongBeachUrbanist]

I will say this: there are lots of little improvements to the area that would cost so little (relatively) and would help so much that Related ought to be pushing for them.

One of them is landscaping the entire area, down to 4th Street and over to Main. How much would it cost to install trees and uniform street lamps? $10 million? $20 million?

How 'bout more taxi stands throughout Downtown? How much would that cost? Better signs throughout Downtown directing tourists to Downtown's neighborhoods. How much would that be?

These are improvements that would benefit all of Downtown, including the Grand Avenue project, by making the area a more attractive urban environment. If they would help restore the area's image and thus bring shoppers to the project, wouldn't the investment be worth it to all parties?

:nuts:

Also, I have to agree with Kaplan about the 20% affordable housing component. At this point, that's 400 units!!! In the middle of a super-expensive project!!! The city/county would be better off lowering this requirement in exchange for a fund to build affordable housing elsewhere Downtown. Like maybe in South Park or on Hill Street.

[bobcat]

^ Those sound like good ideas, but they really fall under the jurisdiction of DCBID and other civic agencies. It isn't the job of Related or AEG or any other private developer to handle that unless it was specifically called for in the bidding process.

Until I have seen detailed renderings for the streetscape designs I can't really comment on those. However, I do think Related has come up with a good mix of uses for this location. While housing is a majority component, the planned hotel, retail, entertainment, and dining are appropriate for its location adjacent to the Music Center and Disney Hall.

[LongBeachUrbanist]

I didn't mean Related is responsible for those improvements. It is absolutely the responsibilty of the city of LA to revitalize Downtown.

My point is, it's vital to all parties - the city, the county and the developer - to have a well-functioning and attractive Downtown.

As I said in a previous post, the opening of this project is going to be very high profile. In some ways it will represent the debut of the New Downtown Los Angeles on the world stage. Because of this high profile, I believe the improvements I mentioned would yield big dividends relative to their cost. Conversely, creating a shining gem in the middle of an otherwise dysfunctional Downtown would be a waste of public and private dollars, and would miss the opportunity of a lifetime.

So I think right now, while contract negotiations are underway, is the time to negotiate such improvements.

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

Here is an update from the Grand Ave Committee website.





Posted April 1, 2005
In February and March, the preliminary plans for the Grand Avenue project were presented in a second round of community meetings held in Downtown LA, South LA, Eastside, the San Fernando Valley, and Westside/Hollywood areas. Incorporating the initial ideas and principles that were discussed in the first round of the outreach meetings held in October and November 2004, the presentation focused on the masterplan for the park, the development parcels and the street.

Community participants generally expressed positive feedback for the fundamentals of the overall plan. Participants favored the project’s overall density, citing that it was both appropriate for the area and would create a critical amount of activity in the first phase. The siting of the buildings, in which the taller buildings were set back from the Walt Disney Concert Hall to maintain views to City Hall, was commended, as were the connections to the historic core and civic center via Hill Street. Community members emphasized that the design of the terraces and stairways should be both inviting and easily accessible given the steep grade change. Creating activity along the street edge was deemed critical. Also highlighted was the need for the project to create a bold presence with an iconic tower. Opposition to any kind of themed style or design was reiterated.

Community participants expressed excitement about the plans for the redesigned park and many suggestions were made regarding possible uses and activities. The idea of creating a large lawn area that could serve as a gathering space for concerts and special events resonated with many participants. Also well received was the creation of a new park adjacent to the front of City Hall between Spring Street and Broadway that could be used for important civic celebrations. The idea of improving the park’s connection to the adjacent streets and surrounding neighborhood by removing existing barriers was deemed critical to the park’s success. Though not included in the project’s scope, recommendations were made to either remove or renovate the existing County Hall of Administration and Courts buildings to enhance visibility and access to the park. Suggested amenities included jogging paths, water features, seasonal gardens and flexible recreation spaces, among other ideas.

In addition to this summary, there were specific comments that have been highlighted below:
Overall Vision | The Park | The Parcels | The Street

* Increase pedestrian presence in the area
* Make the project safe and secure
* Use sustainable building practices throughout project
* Ensure that the entire project is easily accessible
* "Green" the entire project area
* Make the entire project a "wireless community"
* Have a plan to deal with the homeless population
* Include an apprenticeship and jobs training program

* Integrate café and other support pavilions into the design of the park
* Make the edges of the park permeable
* Close the streets through the park during weekends or special events
* Select a unique name for the park
* Create places where a wide range of activities can occur
* Incorporate native California plants
* Weave the different program elements together

* Incorporate escalators and elevators to overcome grade change
* Ensure that views from Walt Disney Concert Hall and City Hall are maintained
* Maintain views to the historic core
* Complement the existing uses located along Hill Street and in the historic core
* Don't create blank walls along the rear sides of the project
* Create a strong focal point in the project
* Include many housing units
* Include cultural uses
* Include a mix of both local and national retailers
* Design slender towers to preserve views

* Encourage bicycle access, including lanes and paths throughout the project
* Create sufficient and affordable parking
* Enhance the pedestrian environment by widening the sidewalks along Grand Avenue
* Ensure that access to parking works with overall project design
* Use the streetscape to connect to the Colburn School, Cal Plaza, and Wells Fargo
* Link to existing and future transit systems
* Emphasize First Street as an important connective downtown street
* Include unique bus stops that are ingrated with the overall design of the project

The participation and input received during the outreach process has been very valuable to the Development Team. If you have further ideas or comments that you would like to provide, please email: info@grandavenuecommittee.org. To view the ideas from the first round of community meetings, please refer to the initial Ideas page.

[DJM19]

I dont know if I like all of this slender, set back tower stuff...I guess I have see what they mean by slender and what they mean by set back.

[Bernd]

I dont know if I like all of this slender, set back tower stuff...I guess I have see what they mean by slender and what they mean by set back.

Set back? How many more plazas does downtown need? Build'em right to the widewalk, I say!

[DJM19]

I know. Build it up to the damn street! Not every tower project needs a plaza...I hate when they devote 25% of the street to the towers and 75% to open walkway (exagerating of course)

[citywatch]

LA Times, May 24, 2005

http://www.latimes.com/media/photo/2005-05/17705481.jpg
Eli Broad, left, co-chairman of the Grand Avenue Committee, L.A. Mayor-elect Antonio
Villaraigosa and county Supervisor Gloria Molina take a look at a model of the project.

Plans That Would Alter L.A. Skyline Approved

By Cara Mia DiMassa
Times Staff Writer

Los Angeles city and county officials Monday approved plans for a cluster of high-rise towers, parks, shopping centers and entertainment venues around Walt Disney Concert Hall, declaring that the Grand Avenue project would bring an urban heart to a city that has long been without one. The approval came as developers unveiled for the first time detailed plans for the project, which would significantly alter the downtown skyline and create a 16-acre park linking Bunker Hill with the Civic Center.

The plans call for five new skyscrapers, including a 45- to 50-story building that would house a boutique hotel and condominiums, and four other towers of approximately 30 stories each that would include condominiums as well as affordable housing. The buildings would be situated around 400,000 square feet of retail shops, including a multi-screen movie cinema and a high-end supermarket designed to serve downtown's burgeoning residential population. The concept, backers said, would bind the landmarks in and around Grand Avenue — Disney Hall, the Music Center, Museum of Contemporary Art and the Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels — into something like a city square.

"In some ways, Los Angeles has always been a divided city, a divided county," said Eli Broad, co-chairman of the Grand Avenue Committee, which is shepherding the project on behalf of the city, county and Community Redevelopment Agency. "That will all change with the creation of a vibrant city center where people can work, live and play."

But while Broad and a host of city and county officials hailed the milestone Monday, some questioned whether the plans really measure up to Broad's famous vow to turn Grand Avenue into Los Angeles' version of the Champs Elysees in Paris. Some critics believe the design shares more in common with a shopping mall than a unique public space. Robert Harris, a professor of architecture at USC and the former chairman of the city's downtown strategic plan advisory committee, said he was "infuriated" that the plan seems to focus businesses and public attractions inward rather than having them line the main streets, such as Grand Avenue and 1st Street. As a result, the streets themselves would remain void of life, with the action happening inside the confines of the developments, he said. "The plan doesn't make a fantastic promenade.... It's got to do that," said Harris, who lives downtown. "We should lie down before the bulldozers if it doesn't do that."

The approval, by a city and county joint powers authority made up of top officials, including county Supervisor Gloria Molina and City Councilwoman Jan Perry, came after more than a year of planning and public meetings. The unanimous vote allows the Related Cos., the project's developer that recently completed Time Warner Center in Manhattan, to hire architects and landscape designers to create the signature look of the development. Some names being discussed include Disney Hall architect Frank Gehry. But Thom Mayne, the architect of the new Caltrans building, who was listed as a key member of the development team last year, is no longer involved in the effort, officials said Monday.

The project is expected to cost $1.8 billion and would be funded privately. Officials said Monday that they should have no trouble raising the capital. Bill Witte, president of the Related Cos. of California, said that the developer had paid particular attention to the public spaces of the project, especially after listening to community concerns at a series of public forums. "We're knitting all of these uses together in a way that works," Witte said. "We've paid a huge amount of attention to the streetscape and pedestrian levels ... to make sure that there was great, usable public space."

Planners envision Grand Avenue as the spine of a nearly mile-long row of cultural and religious institutions, with the new development sprinkled around them. The tallest tower, described by Related as "the iconic tower," would rise at the corner of Grand Avenue and 2nd Street, across the street from Disney Hall. On the other side of the street, two residential towers would be built along with the movie theater, a bookstore, a grocery store and other retail businesses. A 35- to 40-story residential tower would rise a block south near the corner of 2nd and Olive streets. Nearby, the developers plan a 15- to 20-story office building at Hill and 1st streets above a Metro Rail stop and a 25- to 30-story residential building on 1st and Olive streets. Many of the parcels where development would occur are now either vacant or used as parking lots.

In an effort to help pedestrians navigate the area, Related wants to build a pedestrian bridge over Olive between 1st and 2nd and make major improvements to the look of Grand Avenue. The idea is to better link all the new buildings to the 16-acre park, which would be located a few blocks north, adjacent to the Music Center. The park would follow the sloping contour of Bunker Hill, providing a dramatic unobstructed view from the Music Center down to City Hall. The park, Witte said, could be used for festivals, farmers markets, political rallies and other public events that now go elsewhere in the city. Related plans a series of "urban steppes" through the 16-acre park, including what developers have called a Grand Terrace and Great Lawn, as well as public gardens and a civic plaza. They plan to design escalators and steps to take pedestrians through the park, which rises about 80 feet between Spring Street on the east and Grand Avenue on the west.

The Grand Avenue project has been hailed by backers as an effort to bring night life and a sense of community to a downtown that for decades was known for closing down when the sun set. Since the project was proposed five years ago, downtown has seen an infusion of residents attracted by both high-end condos and lofts. On the south end of downtown, Staples Center has sparked an economic revival, bringing new residential construction and downtown's first new chain grocery store in decades. But the kind of mixed-use development that Related is proposing for Bunker Hill has met with mixed success elsewhere in Southern California. Although the Grove shopping center near Park La Brea is booming, other developments such as Paseo Pasadena and Hollywood & Highland have struggled to find the right mix of tenants. Witte, however, said the unique nature of the Grand Avenue project — with a marriage of retail and resident with existing museums and fine arts centers — sets it apart. "This is also a much larger template to play with here, he said.

The park would be bordered on the east and west by the county Hall of Administration and the Stanley Mosk Courthouse, two buildings that Molina, chairwoman of the joint powers authority, said have "significant seismic issues" and eventually may have to be razed. Witte said that the park has been planned with such a possibility in mind. If those buildings are knocked down, he said, their footprints could be incorporated into a larger park with relatively little cost or effort. If that happens, one idea that has been bandied about is for the county to relocate many of its core offices from the Hall of Administration to one of the new office buildings.

But Joel Kotkin, a senior fellow at the New America Foundation and the author of "The City: A Global History," called that idea "outrageous" and would lead to a public subsidy of the developer — a prospect that government officials have taken pains to avoid. "We ought to be questioning where the demand is coming from," he said. Downtown Los Angeles already has a glut of unused office space, much of which was built in the 1980s, Kotkin said. "Why can't we put them in there and cut a better deal?" he asked. "What a bunch of chumps we are."

The Los Angeles County Economic Development Corp. estimates that the Grand Avenue project would create 5,000 full-time jobs and generate approximately $565 million in annual business revenue to the city and the county. Officials said that they expect an environmental impact review of the Grand Avenue project to be completed by the end of the year. The first phase of the project's construction could begin as early as December 2006.

Broad pointed out that in the five years since its inception, the project has spanned the administrations of two mayors and was poised to overlap a third's. All three of those men were in attendance Monday, and all voiced their support for the project. Mayor James K. Hahn sat in the front row; former Mayor Richard Riordan and Mayor-elect Antonio Villaraigosa sat side-by-side in the next. The plan, Broad said, "is one thing all three of you can agree on."

[Bernd]

At least Joel Kotkin's against the plan. That's promising.

[LongBeachUrbanist]

The article says Joel Kotkin is against the idea of demolishing the county admin building and relocating those offices into the project. On that issue, I think he's dead wrong. The sooner those earthquake-unsafe county buildings are demolished, the better.

My concerns are the ones voiced by Robert Harris, that the design is too inward-focused. It sounds like retail isn't fronting the streets, but instead is facing the "promenade". Of course, it's hard for me to make a judgement, since I haven't yet seen the "detailed plans" that were apparently unveiled.

The number of towers is a big question mark for me. The article says five towers, but the photo suggests six. The article lists: "Iconic Tower", 2nd/Grand

Two residential towers, "on the other side of the street"

35-40 story residential tower, 2nd/Olive

15-20 story office tower, 1st/Hill

25-30 story residential tower, 1st/Olive
So is that 5 towers? 6 towers? 4 towers? :help:

Anyway, I'll be glad when this thing gets off the drawing board and gets built!

[POLA]

did that article compare it to The Grove? Oh god, we're doomed!

[LongBeachUrbanist]

From LA Times, 24 May 2005:

CRITIC'S NOTEBOOK
If the Vision Is Well Executed, It Could Be Grand
By Christopher Hawthorne, Times Staff Writer

When it comes to the redevelopment of Grand Avenue, will Thom Mayne wind up looking like the proverbial canary in the coal mine? And is Frank Gehry poised to join the project in full?

Those questions remain unanswered after a master plan for Los Angeles' downtown core earned preliminary approval Monday from the Grand Avenue Authority, a body that includes city and county officials and was created to oversee the project.

The master plan is something of a paradox. Though privately financed, the project holds the potential not just to revitalize downtown but to reassert its very public-ness. It was unveiled at a news conference by the New York-based developer Related Cos. and the Grand Avenue Committee, a panel chaired by billionaire philanthropist Eli Broad. The plan itself was produced largely by Related and the Chicago office of architecture firm Skidmore, Owings & Merrill.

The $1.8-billion project proposes adding nine acres of mixed-use development, including as many as five residential towers of 25 to 50 stories each, immediately to the south and east of Walt Disney Concert Hall. It also calls for a 16-acre park — a potentially stunning space that would sweep down the hill in a series of terraces, from the Music Center to the steps of City Hall.

More broadly, the plan aims to stitch together downtown's stand-alone architectural icons — City Hall, Gehry's Walt Disney Concert Hall, Jose Rafael Moneo's Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels and Arata Isozaki's Museum of Contemporary Art — with a new fabric of housing, retail and outdoor spaces. On the commercial side, it would add a boutique hotel, an upscale grocery, an art-house cinema, a health club and several restaurants to the area ringed by 1st Street, 2nd Street, Grand Avenue and Hill Street. That piece of land, just down the hill from Disney Hall, now is covered by parking lots.

The redevelopment will offer a high-profile, high-stakes test of the public-private partnerships that have grown so popular in cash-strapped cities around the country. Such partnerships require elected officials to cede substantial control of traditionally civic initiatives to developers. In this case, in exchange for fast-track approvals for the commercial component, which could bring the company a windfall, Related has agreed to build the park at no cost to taxpayers.

If well executed, the park could give downtown the truly vibrant gathering place civic leaders have dreamed of since the City Beautiful Movement at the turn of the previous century. But if it is sterile, overly precious or devotes too much space to high-priced retail pavilions, it will reinforce the city's reputation as a place where the private and the profitable trump the public every time, and where the main architectural attractions are out-of-the-way jewels connected only by a gridlocked freeway system.

Now designed to cover 16 acres, the park could find extra breathing room if two aging buildings, the 1958 County Courthouse and 1961 Hall of Administration, were demolished and their tenants moved to a new office tower on Hill Street. Knocking down the courthouse, on 1st between Grand and Hill, would help connect the park more successfully to the commercial development, from which it is substantially walled off in the current version of the master plan. But the demolitions would require bringing public money and vigorous public leadership to a development that has so far lacked both.

Related has assembled a high-powered if conservative group of designers to execute its vision, including SOM's Philip Enquist, who helped develop Millennium Park in Chicago; his SOM colleague David Childs, who has been battling with Daniel Libeskind over the design of the Freedom Tower at the World Trade Center site in New York; Philadelphia-based landscape architect Laurie Olin; and local architect Brenda Levin.

Mayne and his Santa Monica firm, Morphosis, were part of the original Related lineup. The architect — who was awarded the Pritzker Prize, his field's highest honor, this year — is known for hard-edged designs that aren't always kind to individual users or pedestrians. Still, there can be no doubting the level of his commitment to Los Angeles or his fierce impatience with traditional development formulas, which have produced so many soulless, fortress-like office towers downtown in the last two decades.

That's why his split from the Related team, which Mayne says came after his first and only presentation to the company, should be cause for concern — even for those with reservations about his architecture. Above all, Mayne's presence offered hope that the project might avoid the glossily generic feel that has marked other recent Related buildings, notably the mall-like Time Warner Center in Manhattan, also an SOM design.

Gehry, who earlier was allied with one of Related's competitors for the job, has taken Mayne's place as the resident celebrity architect on the developer's roster. But precisely what role he will play remains unclear. He has reportedly been in talks with Related to design the project's architectural icon, a 45- to 50-story hotel and condominium tower at the corner of Grand Avenue and 2nd Street.

But confirmation of that assignment was notably missing from the proceedings Monday — as was Gehry himself. Related officials appear confident that they will come to an agreement with the architect that would allow him to design the tower. If they don't, or if Gehry stays on simply as an advisor, it would be a significant red flag, especially given the developer's inability to keep Mayne (and the talented landscape architect Kathryn Gustafson, another early casualty) on its team. And it would lend credence to the cynical notion that Gehry joined the project primarily to keep a watchful eye on the area around Disney Hall.

Worst of all, failure to bring in Gehry as a significant partner would only amplify complaints that Related has been more interested in adding the names of cutting-edge designers to its team at crucial points in the approval process than in actually working with those figures.

These issues take on added urgency because the master plan unveiled Monday hovers precariously between intelligently civic-minded and strictly bottom-line-driven planning. The developers and their architects are so far saying all the right things. They have devoted 20% of the new residential buildings to affordable units and insist they are committed to taking advantage of the site's links to public transportation. They speak with convincing fluency about "porosity" — about making sure the commercial and retail areas promote a sense of openness and free flow of pedestrian traffic from surrounding streets.

Indeed, their comments suggest the extent to which a new planning gospel has begun to emerge in U.S. cities. The latest formula — and however progressive it appears, it is still a formula — begins with a healthy dose of New Urbanist thinking about pedestrian-friendly, mixed-use development, with housing placed atop stores and restaurants that open onto the street. It then adds a touch of the high-rise residential density that cities such as San Diego and Vancouver have successfully brought to their downtowns.

The result in this case is a master plan in which the height and relative skinniness of the residential towers buys room for open space at their feet and, to the north and east, in the new park. In theory, at least, this represents an immense improvement over previous development strategies downtown. The Related scheme, like all master plans, is merely a framework: It details how the parcels would be sliced up but not who would design them. And although it offers a chance to revivify the public realm downtown, it also could do the opposite.

It will all depend on execution, of course, and on how much leeway Related gives its collaborating architects and designers — particularly those, such as Gehry and Levin, who can help the project reflect the fact that it is in Los Angeles and not Tucson, Minneapolis or Manhattan. God may be in the details, as Ludwig Mies van der Rohe said, but in developments like this, the devil is too.

[LosAngelesBeauty]

I am going to post this again, which I did more than a year ago on this board.




LOS ANGELES GRAND AVENUE PROJECT


The following is my letter to the Los Angeles First District Supervisor, Gloria Molina, concerning what I and many others feel, will be a dire problem for the Grand Avenue of tomorrow if we do not address this before the final development plans are established.



Dear Gloria Molina,


After reviewing the plans for the Grand Avenue project, it has come to my attention and civic concern that one significant issue, that is not being fully addressed, will almost certainly continue to circumscribe the area's potential vitality planned for Grand Avenue: the Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration and Courthouse buildings.

City and urban planners, through empirical research, have come up with "rules" that a park should follow in order to become successful by connecting people together and truly creating the community that a world-class city like Los Angeles needs. It is truistic to mention, however, cities like San Francisco and New York have successfully created wonderful parks (Golden Gate Park, Central Park, etc.) that have become centers of vibrant activity. Their dedication to provide these meeting grounds not only aids in connecting the people together, but also promotes a kind of civic pride few in Los Angeles truly feel today due to a lack of strong identification with the city. A feeling of being "disconnected." The suburbanization and dependency on the automobile have led to the endless sprawl that has slowly eaten away at the very fabric of social connection which holds a city together. The need for a strong central core must be the next phase of Los Angeles' long-range development plans. Perhaps we (the people of our great city of Los Angeles) should invest more thought and heart into this "master project" along an infamous avenue that has failed time and again to become "the Champs" of LA since the last Victorian home was demolished on Bunker Hill. Let us plan without forgetting our past mistakes and let us not repeat them again. This is our last chance to get it right.

Taken from the Project for Public Spaces a park must fulfill these 4 rules to be truly considered a "Great Park."

1) Activity and Uses

"What types of activities make parks community magnets? When a park provides a place for people to ice skate and also an area nearby where people can sit and talk, get warm and get something to eat or drink, its chances of becoming a good place are increased, simply because there are numerous things to do, attracting many different people. A good place should be regularly available so that people can rely on it when the chatting whim strikes. The Great Good Place by Ray Oldenburg identifies neighborhood spots that act as the glue of their communities, drawing people to them for companionship and relaxation. Examples might be a neighborhood bocce court in a park, a corner bar, a coffeehouse or a playground -- all are places characterized by popular informality. Their users can anticipate lively conversations with the 'regulars,' 'characters,' and other neighbors. According to Oldenburg, in good places every person is known for their social self, not as an employee or family member -- roles, he says, that can make people feel like they are in straightjackets from which they long to escape. A good place also encourages people to 'sit and set a spell.' Being able to sit, converse or just look at passersby is key."

2) Comfort and Image


"Good details can tantalize -- they signal that someone took the time and energy to design amenities that welcome, intrigue, or help. City Comforts: How to Build an Urban Village by planner/developer David Sucher and People Places: Design Guidelines for Urban Open Spaces, edited by Clare Cooper Marcus and Carolyn Francis, are packed with thoughtful design ideas including community bulletin boards, restrooms, shade trees, child-friendly niches and bike racks. Author and urbanologist William Whyte talks about the importance of movable seating in his book, City: Rediscovering the Center. Today two thousand movable chairs are scattered on the lawn of Bryant Park in New York, transforming the park from a drug infested public space to a popular mid-town haven."

3) ACCESS AND LINKAGE (!)

"A good place is easy to see and easy to get to -- people want to see that there is something to do, that others have been successfully enticed to enter. On the other hand, if a park is not visible from the street or the street is too dangerous for older people and children to cross, the park won't be used. The more successful a place is, the more the success will feed upon itself. Sometimes, if a place is really good, people will walk through it even if they were headed somewhere else. Tony Hiss' book, The Experience of Place explores how people look ahead to orient themselves: "We let the layout of a place give us an advance reading on such things as whether we can linger there or need to keep on moving" -- if your visual signals are blocked you won't proceed."

4) Sociability

"A sociable place is one where people want to go to observe the passing scene, meet friends, and celebrate interaction with a wide range of people that are different from themselves. Have you ever noticed how many enjoyable conversations you can have at a farmers' market or a flea market? Psychologist Robert Sommer's research says that people tend to have four and a half times more sociable talks with people in a market versus a supermarket. How can the builders and managers of today's parks learn more from other places such as markets about where and how social activity occurs?"


Rule #3 (Access and Linkage) is why the civic park planned for Grand Avenue will fail to become the "new Central Park" of Los Angeles. The reason is because the Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration Building and the Courthouse are both monolithic structures (and quite popularly agreed upon by the public as "eye-sores") that block at least 60% of access to the park! In addition, they provide no entertainment or social relevance to Grand Avenue. It does not take a city planner to predict that those two imposing structures on both sides of the park will prevent many people on the street from entering it. Mainly because the two buildings would literally force entrance and exit from the park to only two sides of the rectangular park creating an inconvenience many pedestrians would avoid.

Furthermore, the structures that would be constructed on parcels Q and W-2 (Map: http://www.grandavenuecommittee.com/plan.html) will benefit little (if at all) from the proposed "civic" park because the people who dwell/eat/work inside cannot walk easily and directly across the street to the park (heading north) because the fortress-like Courthouse stands firmly between them. Pedestrians on the street will also have a hard time (rather impossible) seeing any activity going on inside the park, further diminishing the "civic" park's potential to attract people and becoming the city's "new central park." "A good place is easy to see and easy to get to -- people want to see that there is something to do, that others have been successfully enticed to enter. On the other hand, if a park is not visible from the street...the park won't be used." This idea of an unused park cannot be more true of the current park that sits between the Hahn Building and the Courthouse because most people in Los Angeles (and in Downtown for that matter!) have no idea that this park even exists! Why? Because it's pretty much hidden behind concrete.

The solution to this potentially dire problem for the new Grand Avenue is to completely dismantle the two badly aged buildings: the Hahn Building and the Courthouse. The resulting cleared land can then be seamlessly added to the original park creating an aesthetically pleasing environment and a socially conducive area for all to enjoy. Not only does this add more needed space to a relatively small park of only 16-acres (Central Park, New York is 843 acres), but it will truly be the heart of Grand Avenue as it will essentially socially and visually connect The Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels, the Music Center, Disney Hall, the new developments yet to be constructed on parcels Q and W-2, and our beloved City Hall. The rest of the entire region will also benefit through a "ripple effect" because of the social and visual power created by connecting such important venues establishing a world-class culture mecca.

This idea of connectivity and linkage should sound familiar to those involved with the Grand Avenue project. It was because of the connectivity and linkage of all the cultural venues (from The Cathedral down to the MOCA and even the Central Library) along Grand Avenue that recently evoked such optimism for the future of Grand Avenue. As more cultural venues were added, such as the Cathedral and Disney Hall, so did the appeal and importance of Grand Avenue. That same concept of connectivity and linkage will need to be applied to the park and the important venues that surround it (and I'm not referring to the Hahn Administration Building or the Courthouse either, which have no relevance to the grand scheme of Grand Avenue promoting sociability). The more you connect, the more appealing and powerful the area becomes. Not only will dismantling the Hahn Building and the Courthouse make the proposed park truly great, but it will be the action needed to connect (both visually and for pedestrians' easy access) parcels Q and W-2 to the Cathedral as well as the Music Center and vice versa. Combining these forces together will undoubtedly be more effective than separating them.

I implore you, as the First District Supervisor and Grand Avenue Authority member, on behalf of all Angelenos who passionately hope the Grand Avenue Project succeeds, to earnestly consider the supported approval of dismantling the Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration Building and the Courthouse to make way for a truly wonderful and integrated cultural mecca. I was advised by managing director of the Grand Avenue Committee, Martha Welbourne, at a recent symposium to raise this issue early on because there is a possibility that the services provided in these two buildings can be relocated and incorporated into the new Grand Avenue plan. The success of Grand Avenue will add significant momentum to the burgeoning Los Angeles Central Core (Downtown) development, which can help develop the civic pride many Angelenos lack today. Bunker Hill's history has been far from the success visionaries had hoped for--mainly because it lacked effective social and visual linkages. Let us all plan wisely and not repeat the same mistake again. Downtown deserves a great civic park and should not be neglected any longer.


Sincerely,

Brigham Yen










More to read...

Los Angeles has a lot to work on to stay afloat. In order to truly establish itself as a world player in the future (as other cities in Asia and Mexico assert themselves on the world stage), Los Angeles will need to develop an undoubtedly strong central core, being Downtown, to compete effectively for business as well as providing easy accessibility. And in Downtown, Grand Avenue is one of the main foundations that needs to be built to bring civic life and pride back into the core and entire metropolitan area. And in Grand Avenue, the proposed civic park will have to be successful to link the community together socially and visually. And that means we have to demolish the Hahn Administration Building and the Courthouse in order to link such an important cultural area together. I don't think anyone can dissent from this idea, unless they WANT Downtown Los Angeles to fail! I think demolishing those two monolithic eye-sores to help successfully create one of the main foundations of Downtown is a small sacrifice to pay and will only help reverse the trend of suburbanization by bringing life back into Downtown and reasserting Los Angeles' world-class status.



See how those two buildings (marked with X) can be potentially devastating to the area, both socially and visually?

http://img215.echo.cx/img215/1623/clipimage0021sg.jpg (http://www.imageshack.us)
-The flow is obstructed: For example, for a visitor/resident, instead of walking through the park after a musical/opera at the Music Center, they would prefer to walk directly back to their hotel or residence because it is VERY inconvenient to walk around the Courthouse (which offers absolutely no social/entertainment value to the immediate area). Not only does this mean less "natural" areas to escape the busy city life, but possibly less people lingering outside, which decreases the vibrancy of the entire area. Furthermore, views from inside the park are also obstructed as one cannot see the Disney Hall nor the Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels.



Whatever is constructed on parcels Q/W-2 (hotel/residential/office towers), the people cannot walk across the street to the park easily, vice versa. People will have to walk around those huge buildings, which will be an inconvenience most may not tolerate. Anyone who doubts me, should go to parcel Q/W-2 and pretend/imagine that the hotel/residential tower/office buildings are completed and you want to go to the "great" civic park. Not so easy is it? (I did that recently when I took my cousins there for a tour) Next, go inside the park: can you see the Cathedral from inside the park? No. Can you see the "new hotel?" (or residential tower?) Maybe, depending on where you're located at in the park and how tall they will be. Can you see Disney Hall? No. Will the park offer spectular views? No. Will you like the park? Probably not. See my point? So what exactly DO YOU SEE? An UGLY and towering courthouse with no relevance to the cultural area what-so-ever!

The Grand Avenue planners are thinking extremely narrowly circumscribed by a limited budget of course. Nevertheless, they present a plan that assumes that it's just a "straight line" and they can ignore anything that lies outside that straight line (Grand Avenue). It is common sense that Downtown Los Angeles needs to be connected in all ways and directions, ESPECIALLY for a park in such close proximity to some of the most significant and highly concentrated cultural venues in the entire metropolitan area!

As the illustrations clarify, the view from inside the park will suffer for those who enter! If one is in the park, would it not be ideal to have a unobstructed (almost 360 degree) view of the beautiful Disney Hall, the meaningful Cathedral, the modern new hotel/residential high-rises, the rest of the Music Center (which is partially blocked by the two eye-sores depending on how far east you enter the park), and to the east, City Hall? Instead of feeling connected to Grand Avenue, you'll feel like you're in another area altogether. There will be a feeling of disconnection that will obviously not be as effective as feeling visually connected to the area.

Given the history of Bunker Hill, the idea of connectivity seems to be as elusive as coming up with an adequate source of funding. In the end, the structures (hotel/residential/office/retail) that are planned to be built on the parcels may not suffice if they are not tied together by a successful park which is socially and visually necessary to Grand Avenue.

[DJM19]

But while Broad and a host of city and county officials hailed the milestone Monday, some questioned whether the plans really measure up to Broad's famous vow to turn Grand Avenue into Los Angeles' version of the Champs Elysees in Paris. Some critics believe the design shares more in common with a shopping mall than a unique public space. Robert Harris, a professor of architecture at USC and the former chairman of the city's downtown strategic plan advisory committee, said he was "infuriated" that the plan seems to focus businesses and public attractions inward rather than having them line the main streets, such as Grand Avenue and 1st Street. As a result, the streets themselves would remain void of life, with the action happening inside the confines of the developments, he said. "The plan doesn't make a fantastic promenade.... It's got to do that," said Harris, who lives downtown. "We should lie down before the bulldozers if it doesn't do that."


This is the part that worries me. Sounds like they might be focusing the pedestrian traffic off the sidewalks and into between the buildings. Which is exactly the opposite of what this project is suppose to do.

I also found the layout of the buildings rather odd. Some corner buildings are turned 10 degrees so they dont really match up with the sidewalk....things like that.

[jessie_sanchez]

God for 2 billion dollars i was expecting something much more......um....Grand???

[LAMetroGuy]

God for 2 billion dollars i was expecting something much more......um....Grand???

Sorry but... have you actually seen the final vision? Do you know something we don't?

Everything that has been shown on this board (models and drawings) have only been used as a demonstration to show where the towers might go, etc.

Just wait and see what Skidmore, Owings, and Merrill come up with... you never know they might just surprise you. Stay positive people!!! ;)

[LAMetroGuy]

The number of towers is a big question mark for me. The article says five towers, but the photo suggests six. The article lists: "Iconic Tower", 2nd/Grand

Two residential towers, "on the other side of the street"

35-40 story residential tower, 2nd/Olive

15-20 story office tower, 1st/Hill

25-30 story residential tower, 1st/Olive
So is that 5 towers? 6 towers? 4 towers? :help:

Anyway, I'll be glad when this thing gets off the drawing board and gets built!

I agree, this is a bit confusing.... here is a picture of the PDF that is available online.. maybe it will help until we get an official "vision"?:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v600/rpulido/LAGrand.bmp

[LongBeachUrbanist]

FYI, Eli Broad is talking about Grand Avenue right now, on KPCC Air Talk, until 10:40 am (24 May). Go to www.kpcc.org.

[LongBeachUrbanist]

From the radio show: Brenda Levin, architect for the project.

Unprompted, she said the developer was very focused on the connection to Little Tokyo and Historic Core via Second Street, which she hopes will become a dense residential corridor. This is great news!!!

She also emphasized that all that was approved was the high-level plan, the massing and the budget. No architectural designs have been created, since they needed a budget and master plan first.

[colemonkee]

Ugh. Looking at that PDF, it's so obvious those County Buildings need to go that a child could figure it out. I'll bet the reason Related hasn't mentioned it is that it will involve injecting public money into the project, which in LA could jeopardize the whole deal. Let's hope Villagarosa takes some initiative (ala Daley in Chicago) and spearheads the removal of the buildings and the funding to do so.

[Wright Concept]

...But while Broad and a host of city and county officials hailed the milestone Monday, some questioned whether the plans really measure up to Broad's famous vow to turn Grand Avenue into Los Angeles' version of the Champs Elysees in Paris. Some critics believe the design shares more in common with a shopping mall than a unique public space. Robert Harris, a professor of architecture at USC and the former chairman of the city's downtown strategic plan advisory committee, said he was "infuriated" that the plan seems to focus businesses and public attractions inward rather than having them line the main streets, such as Grand Avenue and 1st Street. As a result, the streets themselves would remain void of life, with the action happening inside the confines of the developments, he said. "The plan doesn't make a fantastic promenade.... It's got to do that," said Harris, who lives downtown. "We should lie down before the bulldozers if it doesn't do that."

The central reason of nothing being planned ON First and Grand Streets is why I feel this project is truly going to be another fortress and that is the missing link and why the people who want to the Courthouse and County Buildings demolished to enlarge the park won't see that happen until activity is lined on Grand, 1st and Hill Streets so they filter into the park and provide an essential visual and physcial connection. If you open up the park yet do nothing for the street leading into the park then that would fail as well.

[LongBeachUrbanist]

I have no doubt that the county courts building (the one on First) will be demolished by the time the project is finished. There is so much consensus among planners and stakeholders about this, it's a no-brainer. But someone needs to take the lead, maybe it will be Villaraigosa.

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

i really like the fact that the developers are trying to connect to the rest of Downtown and that they play to incorporate Public Transportation as much as possible (too bad they didnt mention the DNC, thats what i was really hoping for) im reserving judgement until the design comes out, but i dont like the fact that it is focused away from the street. Also, LBU, thats some great news and i think that residential density on 2nd will help all of DT LA.

[LAMetroGuy]

I heard the radio show and according to "them" there is a huge focus on the streets. They indicated that these models were more of a generic massing used to display the location of the towers but not to reflect the actual design or detail elements at the street level. They indicated that the street level details (retail, etc.) is very much on the midnds of the developers and will be incorporated within the entire project. They said they don't want empty streets.

[ocman]

I think Paul Revere Williams, a prominant architect, designed one of the county buildings, so that may be an extra obstacle if the public begins to view it as a historic landmark.

[LongBeachUrbanist]

I don't think there's much worry this turd will be considered a historic landmark.

http://www.you-are-here.com/los_angeles/1958_superior_court.jpg

Landmark status is in the eye of the beholder. I can't imagine any reaction other than nausea at the sight of this festering toenail.

Besides, Frank Lloyd Wright didn't save every dump that he squeezed out of his ass. Why should we save this stool?

[igzaklee]

"But the demolitions would require bringing public money and vigorous public leadership to a development that has so far lacked both."

uh...


well HAHN's gone now, so consider this a GO!!

[DJM19]

their supposedly generic massing worries me stilll. Why cant they just draw the building's lining the main street if thats really what they intend in the end. If you read LA times you see how they have situated the buildings ont the blocks. Very spaced out, no real street focus. Some buildings dont even fully meet up with the sidewalk. Its like you have to have a plaza for every damn skyscraper in LA.

[LosAngelesBeauty]

Landmark status is in the eye of the beholder. I can't imagine any reaction other than nausea at the sight of this festering toenail.

Besides, Frank Lloyd Wright didn't save every dump that he squeezed out of his ass. Why should we save this stool?


Laugh Out Loud!!! HAHAHA

[Wright Concept]

their supposedly generic massing worries me stilll. Why cant they just draw the building's lining the main street if thats really what they intend in the end. If you read LA times you see how they have situated the buildings ont the blocks. Very spaced out, no real street focus. Some buildings dont even fully meet up with the sidewalk. Its like you have to have a plaza for every damn skyscraper in LA.

To the architects credit, when doing preliminary designs massings are usually the rule. But in this particular project when so much is foucsed to the street, preliminary perspectives and views on the streets emphasizing the unique topography and characteristics of the site should be included with the massing models to fully articulate the vision.

[Bernd]

Besides, Frank Lloyd Wright didn't save every dump that he squeezed out of his ass. Why should we save this stool?

Aside from being one of L.A.'s most respected architects, Paul Revere Williams was also an African American...I can see politically how it might be difficult to tear the building down.

[LongBeachUrbanist]

^ Not dissing the man, just the building! I didn't know what race the architect was, nor does that affect my opinion of the building.

I do hear what your saying though - it could become an issue if that's what's emphasized. IMO, what ought to be emphasized is the building is old, it's ugly, and it's standing in the way of LA having a great park.

[DJM19]

I made a pretty accurate copy of the layout shown in the LATimes...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v196/DJKiller/grandlayout.gif

[LosAngelesBeauty]

Besides, Frank Lloyd Wright didn't save every dump that he squeezed out of his ass. Why should we save this stool?

Aside from being one of L.A.'s most respected architects, Paul Revere Williams was also an African American...I can see politically how it might be difficult to tear the building down.


Actually, you're one of not even a handful of people I have ever heard even expressing the slightest dissention from tearing those down. You may think everyone knows who the architect is, but unfortunately just saying he's "African American" doesn't rouse up "OH MY GOD!" from people. Everyone is fair game. If your building sux, and it's preventing a world-class area from achieving its full potential, then black or white shouldn't be the issue.

[DJM19]

I hope it ends up more uniform, not a bunch of boxes, but at least make it urban, more like this:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v196/DJKiller/newlayout.gif

[Bernd]

Besides, Frank Lloyd Wright didn't save every dump that he squeezed out of his ass. Why should we save this stool?

Aside from being one of L.A.'s most respected architects, Paul Revere Williams was also an African American...I can see politically how it might be difficult to tear the building down.


Actually, you're one of not even a handful of people I have ever heard even expressing the slightest dissention from tearing those down. You may think everyone knows who the architect is, but unfortunately just saying he's "African American" doesn't rouse up "OH MY GOD!" from people. Everyone is fair game. If your building sux, and it's preventing a world-class area from achieving its full potential, then black or white shouldn't be the issue.

Oh, the building sucks, don't get me wrong. It was just speculation...you never know when interest groups will find something politically expedient to exploit.

[POLA]

didn't the OJ Simpson case go down there?

[LongBeachUrbanist]

I think it was at the Hall of Justice on Broadway. Not sure though.

[DJM19]

I think oj had his case in a different ugly court building.

[Art]

So is the n/w corner of first/spring(just north of city hall) part of the plan? Is anything planned for that ugly-ass lot? That can make the grand avenue plan much more accessable to more of downtown.

[LongBeachUrbanist]

^ No, that corner is not part of the plan. I think that's reserved for future construction. Currently occupied by skateboarders. The parking lot directly west of City Hall is included, however.

[citywatch]

I wonder how realistic or firm is Related's idea to bring in a major grocery store, esp an expensive one, like Whole Foods? That & other stores mentioned as possible tenants in the proj means it's almost mandatory that something like hundreds & hundreds & hundreds of units of new housing be inserted into the various bldgs on Bunker Hill. Or at least way more than the few hundred in one new bldg, a few hundred in another. But if that issue is taken care of, Related then faces the question of at what point does it run the risk of flooding the hood with too many apts & condos? At the same time Related then faces the dilemma of a lot of new retailing in its devlpt practically requiring there be lots & lots of nearby consumers, 24/7, to support everything. IOW, they end up facing a variety of Catch 22s.

The company's big proj in NYC, Time Warner Ctr next to Central Pk, is not something I envy, even more so since I don't think a DT LA version of it on Grand will be very popular or well supported. Again, DT doesn't have the huge pool of ppl that a devlpt like Time Warner in NYC can feed off of, & so I think Related would be crazy to go the cheapo route by believing any architect & any assembly line plan, which is even likelier to occur if SOM & David Childs dominate the proj, would be no better, no worse, than any other.



LA Times, May 25, 2005

EDITORIAL
Imagining Downtown

Los Angeles faces a rarity in urban redevelopment: acres of virtually blank space in its downtown core. The planned $1.8-billion Grand Avenue project, a residential and commercial complex intended to knit together a swath of landmarks from City Hall through Disney Hall and the Museum of Contemporary Art, will in the short term displace only an ugly parking structure and some asphalt. That means no contentious fights over what might be torn down. It also means there is little historic template to impart verve and flavor to the new construction.

This grungy tabula rasa could become anything, and the tentative plan made public this week provides a hopeful if still sketchy glimpse of the future. There is a lot to like about the privately funded project, including the inclusion of affordable housing units and a 16-acre park linking Bunker Hill to the Civic Center — not to mention the fact that the plan is (and must stay) privately funded. Skeptics do worry about the project's likely middle-of-the-road architects and lack of well-defined street activity. They raise fears that its developer, Related Cos. of California, will go for the easy fix: a string of inward-facing chain stores that could as easily be at the Grove or Century City.

There's an equally powerful argument that downtown workers and residents would love to have it so good: Barnes & Noble! Nordstrom! The Gap! Whole Foods Market! A multiplex! They may cherish the elegant park running from the Dorothy Chandler Pavilion to City Hall, but they'll spend more time at the supermarket. Downtown, with any luck, will get its familiar chain stores. Yet the Grand Avenue project will succeed only if it has a range of commerce — including, say, unique art galleries and other stores not found in suburbia. It also needs to incorporate public gathering space, a modern-day commons, which the city direly needs. That park space is crucial.

To ensure that the whole of downtown offers an experience unlike any suburban mall, public officials such as county Supervisor Gloria Molina and City Councilwoman Jan Perry, whose districts would be home to the project, need to encourage the eclectic commercial mix and the survival of some attractive public space during any "refinements" of the plan.

It will also be up to the developers to provide opportunities for serendipity and urban sophistication along with a lucrative chain-store-and-restaurant backbone. As for the architecture of the buildings and the space itself, the developer must proceed with care, lest Frank Gehry's Disney Hall become encircled by mediocrity. Gehry, once part of the Grand Avenue planning, now seems to be receding from it. But the project needs a voice like his, rambunctious and visionary.

Los Angeles is at last valuing its lovely, neglected old commercial buildings and turning them into living and working spaces. The Grand Avenue project can be a powerful catalyst for filling the void of downtown after dark, and advancing the renaissance of adjacent parts of L.A.'s core.

==================================================

LA Daily News, May 24, 2005

Grand Plan Cost Jumps $600 Million

By Troy Anderson, Staff Writer

Pursuing a dream of developing a "civic heart" in downtown Los Angeles, the Grand Avenue Authority on Monday unanimously approved the master plan for the massive project - at a price tag $600 million more than first estimated. The master plan of the $1.8 billion project knits together commercial and residential uses with an emphasis on creating a great public park and connecting the corridors that highlight the city's architectural icons - Disney Hall, the Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels and City Hall. The project will require substantial public investment in public buildings and infrastructure improvements and the increased property tax revenue will go to pay off redevelopment bonds.

"People say Los Angeles does not have a civic heart downtown," said Stephen M. Ross, chairman and chief executive officer of The Related Cos., which won the contract to develop the project. "The goal is really to create that civic heart, making downtown a real destination, which is something that is a real challenge and something I look forward to being involved in."

Plans call for Related to pay a $50 million, non-refundable deposit to lease four parcels from the city and county and to create a 16-acre civic park.The rest of the public spaces will be paid for by tax-increment financing - bonds sold by redevelopment agencies, which are repaid with the increased property tax revenues generated by the redevelopment projects themselves. Taxpayers will have to foot the bill for renovating the parking structure under the Court of Flags, as well as $200 million for a new county Hall of Administration and an undetermined amount for a new courthouse. Both of the existing buildings have earthquake damage and officials say they need to be replaced soon.

Last year, some authority members had expressed concerns about where they would obtain an estimated $300 million to develop the park and underground parking structures and to make street improvements. But officials are now confident that no city or county general fund dollars will be used on the project. "There is no public money at this point, other than redevelopment money, which is tax-increment money that will be reinvested back into the property," said Grand Avenue Authority chairwoman Gloria Molina, who also heads the county Board of Supervisors.

The estimated cost for the project has soared by $600 million, in part because the authority wants to buy an adjacent parking lot in order to expand the project. Officials also say the true costs emerged as the plans were fine-tuned. "I'm proud I ran the first leg of this relay," former Mayor Richard Riordan said to Mayor-elect Antonio Villaraigosa, who was joined at the press conference at the Founders Room at the Walt Disney Concert Hall by Mayor James Hahn. "And when it closes under your administration, give us both a little bit of the credit."

Billionaire Eli Broad said the idea for the project started when he and Riordan walked down Grand Avenue five years ago and decided a beautiful central park should be built so Southern Californians could have a place to celebrate major events."This all started when Dick Riordan was our mayor," Broad said. "And thank you Jim (Hahn) for picking this up. The mayor-elect also supports this. So it's nice to have one thing all three of you agree on."

Hahn said the project "was a leap of faith" for the city and county, but he said he was glad to have played a role in creating a "boulevard we can all be very, very proud of."

Villaraigosa said he wanted to reaffirm his steadfast commitment to make the project a reality. "I know the hard work is coming," Villaraigosa said. "We have to finance all this."

In addition to the park, the master plan calls for up to 3.5 million square feet of development on 9 acres in the Bunker Hill area. The mixed-use plan also includes 400,000 square feet of retail shops, a 275-room boutique hotel and up to 2,600 residential units. The project on two city-owned and two county-owned parcels, and an adjacent site to be acquired by Related, is expected to generate 5,300 jobs, plus $28 million in annual revenues for the city, county and state.

Construction on the first phase of the project is expected to begin in December 2006 if the plan is approved by the City Council, Board of Supervisors and Community Redevelopment Agency. A distinctive 40- to 50-story "iconic tower" at Second Street and Grand Avenue is planned, along with the hotel with 200 condominiums on the upper floors.

At meetings last year, members of the public had suggested the project include an icon like the Eiffel Tower or Barcelona Fish.

"We don't have a formal design idea, but the goal, and what the public really exhorted us to do, is to create a real identity for this district," said Bill Witte, president and managing partner of Related. "We've worked with (Disney Hall designer) Frank Gehry on this. We want to take advantage of Disney Hall, not overshadow it."

Plans call for the city and county to maintain ownership of the properties, giving Related a 99-year ground lease on the parcels. In addition, Related will also pay to the city and county a percentage of condominium sales, hotel room revenues and gross rents after Related has achieved an undisclosed return.

Asked privately what he thought about the project, Riordan was a bit more candid. "Oh, it's a bunch of baloney," Riordan joked. "It's just rich guys getting richer. I'm one of them."

No, this is what the dream of the city has been about for years, making something like this happen - getting a true downtown for Los Angeles. This is going to be sensational. Grand Avenue is going to be one of the great avenues of the world."

[LongBeachUrbanist]

...Whole Foods? That & other stores mentioned as possible tenants in the proj means it's almost mandatory that something like hundreds & hundreds & hundreds of units of new housing be inserted into the various bldgs on Bunker Hill. Or at least way more than the few hundred in one new bldg, a few hundred in another.

Grand Avenue will create 2,600 new residential units, according to the press release.

[bobcat]

It should also be noted that Whole Foods is an upscale specialty grocer and thus not really a direct competitor with the Ralphs, which is a more mid range chain. Therefore it's reasonable to assume its patrons would be from all over downtown. Considering its proximity to the Red Line, it may even draw patrons from a good distance away.