HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > City Compilations


Closed Thread

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #321  
Old Posted Jun 9, 2007, 11:27 PM
fridayinla's Avatar
fridayinla fridayinla is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 467
I visited the Chapman Lofts today for their weekend open house. The building is beautiful and well-priced, but seems like they still have a ways to go before hitting the Oct/Nov move-in date. Realistically, I'm thinking Jan-Feb of '08.

I found out they already have 2 leases signed for the retail space, Kelly's Coffee [http://www.kellyscoffee.com/], and a spa-type place. The sales rep also mentioned a restaurant was looking at the space fronting Broadway, but nothing has been finalized.

So this sales rep has worked on many of the condo projects in downtown (Vero, 1100 Wilshire, etc.) and I asked he knew anything about Astani's Concerto project. He said that he's been assigned to work that project and that it's definitely not dead! He couldn't give me any information b/c apparently it's all under wraps, but when I mentioned one of the towers going on hold, just smiled and scoffed "not necessarily!" - Thought that was interesting!!
     
     
  #322  
Old Posted Jun 9, 2007, 11:52 PM
JDRCRASH JDRCRASH is online now
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 8,100
When I meant the Transit system is laughable, I meant that its reliability to the public is fairly low compared to large-scale transit rail systems in other cities, like on the East Coast.

I mean come on, while Multi-Millionaire could use his or her own limo service, is that person really going to use the subway?

What it comes down to is that we've come a long way since the demolishing of the Trolleys and trams in Southern California, but it will be very difficult to create a transit system the size of Mexico City, London, Tokyo, and New York City.

And does anybody know what happened to 3 California Plaza
     
     
  #323  
Old Posted Jun 9, 2007, 11:53 PM
LosAngelesSportsFan's Avatar
LosAngelesSportsFan LosAngelesSportsFan is online now
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 7,904
good to hear something about concerto, and not unnecessarily bad news to top it off!
     
     
  #324  
Old Posted Jun 10, 2007, 1:59 AM
ladowntowner ladowntowner is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 441
In my original post I asked:

Quote:
Originally Posted by ladowntowner View Post
I was wondering.. what's the deal with so many of the towers, either under construction or approved/proposed that have parking "podiums" recently? There was a time when most high rises constructed DT had underground parking. I'm guessing it's mainly economics - cheaper to build up than underground. Was there a change in the code at some point? Or was/is the city desperate for development and willing to allow projects of a style it once would not?

On one hand, it does cause the tower to be taller overall than it might've otherwise been (cool), but often it's not incorporated in the design very stealthily and ends up looking tacky at a pedestrian level (on the curb). Sometimes retail is incorporated into the podium successfully to an extent, but these seem to be the exception. Usually it's still painfully obvious it's there. The towers "floating" on a parking podium remind me of a fortress or one step away from being an "off world colony" - completely isolated from the surrounding streetscape.
I think the transportation discussion evolved, then devolved somewhat as a response to my post, but then maybe I'm just deluding myself and my ability to provoke a reaction here.

In any case, I realize that there are high parking space per unit requirements dictated to developers of new projects. This does not, however dictate how these said spaces are incorporated into new developments, which was really the meat of my question/comment. I think many/most of us here already understand the current public transit situation and how L.A. compares to many "more urban" world cities around the globe. Also how dependent our denizens are on the private automobile. I was not looking for a treatise explaining our predicament and bemoaning the lack of a cohesive and comprehensive public transportation system in L.A. edluva took it off on a tangent and ran with it (which he/she - sorry, not really sure which it is - has every right to do here on a public board). It just wasn't what I was asking.

That said, since it did get pulled in that direction, throwing my in:

As many have said here, it has been improved upon in the last two decades considerably. However, we find ourselves in a catch 22 situation regarding public transportation. We need increased ridership to justify building more infrastructure, but in order to increase ridership we need to build more infrastructure going to more places people want/need to go. There isn't a huge outcry for increased public transit because it is still relatively affordable for the masses to get around by car. Resource shortages leading to higher fuel prices may take care of some of the problem. Also, take away the hidden subsidies and have motorists front the true costs of owning/driving/parking a car (as has been done in many denser cities) and people would be howling for public transit. The politicians are aware that these types of policies are extremely unpopular to people who vote here, and in interest of getting reelected, they don't pursue them. They're not dummies. Under the circumstances, I think our officials are doing about the best they can in this regard. We're moving in the right direction, even with some missteps such as questionable routing of light rail lines. It just doesn't move forward fast enough for most of our liking.

Now - back to my original question: What's the deal with parking "podiums" as opposed to underground parking in so many of the newly built/approved/proposed projects?

Last edited by ladowntowner; Jun 10, 2007 at 7:13 AM.
     
     
  #325  
Old Posted Jun 10, 2007, 2:14 AM
ladowntowner ladowntowner is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 441
Quote:
Originally Posted by JDRCRASH View Post
When I meant the Transit system is laughable, I meant that its reliability to the public is fairly low compared to large-scale transit rail systems in other cities, like on the East Coast.

I mean come on, while Multi-Millionaire could use his or her own limo service, is that person really going to use the subway?

What it comes down to is that we've come a long way since the demolishing of the Trolleys and trams in Southern California, but it will be very difficult to create a transit system the size of Mexico City, London, Tokyo, and New York City.
JDRCRASH,

I'd argue that the reliability of our system is as good or better than the "large scale transit systems of East Coast cities". It depends on how you're using the word reliability, though. I think what you really mean is frequency/schedule/hours of operation and routing. In that case you would have a valid point.

Not sure what a "Multi-Millionaire" has to do with the discussion, as I'm pretty sure a multi-millionaire living and trying to get around in any of the cities you mentioned (not just L.A.) would opt for their own vehicle or limo and driver over public transportation, unless they are trying to make a statement.

Last edited by ladowntowner; Jun 10, 2007 at 7:14 AM.
     
     
  #326  
Old Posted Jun 10, 2007, 2:26 AM
DIESELPOLO's Avatar
DIESELPOLO DIESELPOLO is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 664
its great to hear LA is treating their urban planning like it should: a necessity if the city is to become great. hear in phila, we had to get the zoning code reformation voted on in the political primary. we're on our way out of the antiquated zoning laws of days gone by. and its amazing that one of ur guidelines is to have parking structures have active uses fronting the st. Downtown LA is looking great. holla
     
     
  #327  
Old Posted Jun 10, 2007, 4:49 AM
RAlossi RAlossi is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,573
Quote:
Originally Posted by JDRCRASH View Post
And does anybody know what happened to 3 California Plaza
3 Cal Plaza is dead for the time being. The site it was to rise, above the northwestern Pershing Square station entrance, is now being turned into Angels Knoll Park, a "temporary" park on and surrounding the small hill below the Water Court, adjacent to Angels Flight.

In other words, don't get your hopes up for Cal Plaza 3.
     
     
  #328  
Old Posted Jun 10, 2007, 8:44 AM
LosAngelesBeauty's Avatar
LosAngelesBeauty LosAngelesBeauty is offline
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 6,610
Quote:
Originally Posted by yakumoto View Post
The problem right now is that LA isn't ready to truly embrace urbanity. The current zoning laws, while perhaps densifying the city, aren't doing anything to make it more pedestrian friendly. Density is unrelated to pedestrian accessabilty nor height, and as long as new developments are forced to incorporate 2.5 parking spaces per unit, and mixed use isn't the norm, LA is going to remain an auto oriented city.

From the "Paving the Way" DTLA News article...


The guidelines that will be presented this week include:


* Minimum 15-foot wide sidewalks on average.

* Street standards should be based on the context of the surrounding neighborhood rather than a single citywide formula.

* Consistent street standards that don't change from block to block.

* Development and maintenance of sidewalks with sustainable and pedestrian-friendly features by the property owners.

* Any parking structures must be fronted by active uses. (I always worry about this one a lot but you can see this already in use by the Eastern Columbia parking structure recently completed)
     
     
  #329  
Old Posted Jun 10, 2007, 9:02 AM
edluva edluva is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 6,118
Quote:
Originally Posted by ladowntowner View Post
However, we find ourselves in a catch 22 situation regarding public transportation. We need increased ridership to justify building more infrastructure, but in order to increase ridership we need to build more infrastructure going to more places people want/need to go. There isn't a huge outcry for increased public transit because it is still relatively affordable for the masses to get around by car.
about the affordability issue. it's more expensive to own and run a car in la than in chicago - it's the lack of parking in chicago that limits the utility of cars. the relative utility of car ownership is the reason for la's continued transit backwardness - accessibility via la's transit network just doesn't compare to the auto, not even considering all the congestion.

so you're spot on with the catch-22. i think that the potential ridership is there and the infrastructure is already justified, it's our balkanized urban form that limits political movement on this issue. it's the reason that our agency keeps yielding to dumb suburban politics, both within and without la, and it's what prevents the right lines, and gets mta to consider spending billions on idiotic lines to nowhere, which in turn yields low ridership. the only truly urban lines we have are blue and red. i'm not saying the other lines aren't justified, but imagine if we forcefully (as would be needed) shifted gold, green, and orange money toward vermont, santa monica, wilshire, and the connector, you'd see ridership explode, and a genuine urban building boom where transit infrastructure would justify diminishing parking requirements so that ped-friendly dev'ts could go up all over, making la a "real" city. rail ridership growth is an exponential function of rail-line density, it's not a one-for-one deal. we already have lots of miles, but we need rail density.

the forumers here who are blaming zoning req'mts (those that recognize bad zoning as being a problem, not the perennially happy "development cheerleaders") among other more ridiculous things (power lines), are barking up the wrong tree. most of us know that those zoning reqm'ts follow the beat of nimby and money-politics, and that all that — will take care of itself once the transit infrastructure is in place. that's why we need a civic agency to plan rail infrastructure. mta is unable to prioritize our interests effectively - it's building an unusable un-pedestrian-oriented "metro" for a 2000 sq mile UA, we can't rely on mta to solve our problems. how do we get ladot to coordinate transit planning with mta? cuz that's the only way we're getting a real downtown

Last edited by edluva; Jun 10, 2007 at 9:12 AM.
     
     
  #330  
Old Posted Jun 10, 2007, 9:38 AM
k3d's Avatar
k3d k3d is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 236
Here are a couple of updates on Market and Hanover ....



     
     
  #331  
Old Posted Jun 10, 2007, 4:11 PM
DaveofCali's Avatar
DaveofCali DaveofCali is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 6,830
Hello guys, I've started a map to document L.A.'s projects and construction. However, I don't have exact locations for much of L.A.'s projects (exactly what block and how far it stretches.) I'd like some help in clarifying where many of the projects that are not yet covered in the map are located (and how far it stretches through the block). Thanks.

See the map here:

http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&h...6057&spn=0.023682,0.040169&t=h&z=15&om=1
     
     
  #332  
Old Posted Jun 10, 2007, 4:19 PM
yeah215 yeah215 is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 228
Dave, this site might help.

http://cartifact.com/dtnews/
     
     
  #333  
Old Posted Jun 10, 2007, 5:20 PM
dktshb's Avatar
dktshb dktshb is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 5,145
Quote:
Originally Posted by yakumoto View Post
The problem right now is that LA isn't ready to truly embrace urbanity. The current zoning laws, while perhaps densifying the city, aren't doing anything to make it more pedestrian friendly. Density is unrelated to pedestrian accessabilty nor height, and as long as new developments are forced to incorporate 2.5 parking spaces per unit, and mixed use isn't the norm, LA is going to remain an auto oriented city.
The point is the city is becoming much more pedestrian friendly and many people are starting to embrace it. Hollywood all the way to Downtown (which by itself would be a sizable city) is filled with enjoyable walkable, environments. Oh and mixed use development has been the the norm for a time... what hurts us most is the lack of mass transit that can connect these pedestrian walkable neighborhoods with each other.

Last edited by dktshb; Jun 10, 2007 at 5:46 PM.
     
     
  #334  
Old Posted Jun 10, 2007, 6:41 PM
citywatch citywatch is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 6,733
Quote:
Originally Posted by yakumoto View Post
and as long as new developments are forced to incorporate 2.5 parking spaces per unit, and mixed use isn't the norm, LA is going to remain an auto oriented city.

I know someone posted a link to the article below not long ago, but I'm gonna post the full story. At least when it comes to the construction of lofts in the OBD, it's the preferences of devlprs, investors & potential buyers that are setting the requirement.

Another thing: although NYC has some of the heaviest users of transit & most complete network of subway lines in the US, Manhattan still is burdened with crazy amts of traffic congestion. In fact, NYC's mayor is proposing that drivers be charged a fee to enter the city.

BTW, I know someone (a relative of mine) who is big into saving energy, protecting the environment, stopping global warming, promoting transit. Yet when I proposed a few months ago that we set up a carpool, she couldn't be bothered. A simple idea like that & she hemmed & hawed about it. Even worse----& even though I recommened against it, cuz her commute time & gas costs will be much greater----she recently bought a condo that's even farther from where she works. Unfortunately, I don't think ppl like her are uncommon, esp here in LA.


Adaptive Reuse Revisited

For Wade Killefer, Who Designed Numerous Downtown Housing Projects, Development Now Depends on Parking

by Kathryn Maese

Seven years ago, Wade Killefer was a man on fire. Work poured into his Santa Monica architecture firm as Downtown Los Angeles' adaptive reuse boom began transforming dozens of empty office buildings into loft-style housing. In fact, Killefer helped ignite the residential boom in 2000 by conducting a crucial study of housing possibilities in and around the Historic Core. The survey, for preservation group the L.A. Conservancy, discovered that 50 buildings were ripe for conversion into about 5,000 new units. The goal was to make developers aware of the area's potential by creating a database of these long-vacant structures.

The survey made an immediate impact, and since then nearly 3,700 units have been created, with dozens of additional projects under construction. Even buildings that weren't originally included in the study were rehabbed as a result of new design techniques dreamed up by a cadre of eager architects.

"My sense is that now all historic buildings are candidates for conversion," Killefer said during a recent interview in which he reflected on the adaptive reuse trend.

For a time, it seemed like the work would never stop: Killefer's projects included high-profile efforts like designing the transformation of the Old Bank District around Fourth and Main, the historic Pacific Electric Lofts and the dramatic Eastern Columbia. In recent months, however, it has done just that. Though the firm Killefer Flammang Architects currently has seven historic buildings under construction, new commissions for adaptive reuse projects have all but dried up, Killefer noted.

With dozens of structures sitting unused and in disrepair along Broadway, Main and Spring streets, the lack of conversion activity was puzzling. "Our office was talking about the 2000 survey and wondered what had actually happened and wanted to see if we were right or wrong and what was the outcome." he said. "About 20 of the 50 had been converted and we wondered why did some get converted and some not?"

So once again, Killefer took to the streets of the Historic Core. In an informal survey conducted earlier this month, he counted 140 sites that could be brought back to life. Some buildings are completely dark, while others are used mostly for storage on the upper floors with low-end retail on the ground. Immediately, he noticed that one crucial element was missing - parking. "We found that all the buildings with parking, or access to parking, had been converted or were in the process of being converted to housing," said. "My theory is that the parking issue is now stopping adaptive reuse."

Getting Creative

According to the survey, about 60 existing buildings could be turned into housing if they only had parking, and another 80 lots that are either vacant or underdeveloped with one- and two-story buildings on them could also transform. Killefer and his staff argue that if housing is developed on at least half of those sites, and if each project averages 50 lofts, Downtown would see another 3,500 units - and even more residents.

"This would fill in the existing broken-comb-with-teeth-missing that is Downtown today," said Killefer, referring to the gaps in the streetscape.

For the plan to work, Killefer said there would need to be 3,500 parking spaces - or one per unit. To help offset costs, the properties' existing air rights would be sold to developers looking to build higher density projects in other areas (if a building is shorter than its zoned height allowance its owner can sell the "unused" space). Likewise the parking slots would be assigned to tenants for a fee. But there was a major problem with the plan: The lots identified by Killefer are narrow and long, which means the solution had to be creative.

Among his firm's proposed solutions for making parking work are:

- Parking garages would feature housing on top, with units facing the street to activate the façade.

- In some cases, stacked robotic parking, which is currently being proposed by the city Planning Department, would be used for higher density parking.

- The roofs of these structures would be activated with parks or recreational amenities.

In some ways, Killefer's proposal fits with the Community Redevelopment Agency's Downtown parking plan that is currently making its way through city channels. That effort envisions creating more shared neighborhood garages that would meet the needs of visitors and residents. But the CRA and some city leaders are calling for less reliance on parking and more dependence on public transit. In fact, the original adaptive reuse ordinance, which was approved in 1999, placed minimal parking requirements upon developers. The problem is that few renters and homebuyers are willing to hassle with walking to an off-site garage or lot, which is why many buildings originally slated for conversion continue to languish.

Pocket Parks and Paseos

Parking isn't the only element of the vision. To make the narrow plots viable for housing, adjacent pocket parks would be created to provide access to light, air and views. Killefer suggested the green spaces could be gated and overseen by the Downtown Center Business Improvement District. In turn, the parks would make the ground floors more appealing to cafes and other retail business, and could potentially serve as locations for farmers markets or dog parks.

The final element in the plan would be to build mid-block paseos wherever possible. City blocks here are notoriously long - about 600 feet - and pedestrian walkways would help open the super-blocks to more retail and again provide light and air to adjacent buildings. Air rights could also be sold on these parcels.

"The land is suitable for both housing and offices," Killefer said. "There is all this vacant land out there, some 1.2 million square feet. If you multiply that by an FAR (floor area ratio) of 13, that's 15 million square feet available in the Historic Core."

Linda Dishman, executive director of the L.A. Conservancy, agreed that the proposal would help bring more life to Broadway and the Historic Core. As part of the Broadway Initiative, Dishman has been working to create a theater district that would also include more parking. "What Wade is bringing up is the next step," Dishman said. "We still have a lot of historic buildings to deal with. This is something that needs to be looked at. Leadership needs to occur, because it's very easy for a developer to take a vacant lot and plan a condo project and parking, but if you're also looking to provide parking for other uses then that's much harder to get financed. The city has the ability to do bonds for parking."

In Killefer's vision, developers would need to finance most of the elements, while the city would have to help implement an overall plan. Still, his original survey was done with a similar intent and ultimately helped launch a housing spree. "One of the obstacles is that there is not a cohesive vision for the Historic Core and perhaps this will be a catalyst for developing one," said Killefer. Then he added, "This is just one man's opinion."

page 1, 5/28/2007
     
     
  #335  
Old Posted Jun 10, 2007, 6:53 PM
citywatch citywatch is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 6,733
Quote:
Originally Posted by ladowntowner View Post
Now - back to my original question: What's the deal with parking "podiums" as opposed to underground parking in so many of the newly built/approved/proposed projects?
I'm sure it comes down to cost. Digging below ground to set up underground parking lots is way more $$$ than building from the ground up.

And someone asked about Cal Plaza III. Again, that comes down to cost & the ability of a devlpr to get a big enough return on his investment. The problem with proposals like CP III is that there hasn't been enough demand for new office space in the hood, since alot of existing space has remained vacant for yrs.

Putting up new office bldgs is even more of a problem when few businesses will be willing to pay for space in them, because the rental rates in such towers will be based on the much higher construction prices of today.
     
     
  #336  
Old Posted Jun 10, 2007, 7:06 PM
citywatch citywatch is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 6,733
Quote:
Originally Posted by fridayinla View Post
So this sales rep has worked on many of the condo projects in downtown (Vero, 1100 Wilshire, etc.) and I asked he knew anything about Astani's Concerto project. He said that he's been assigned to work that project and that it's definitely not dead! He couldn't give me any information b/c apparently it's all under wraps, but when I mentioned one of the towers going on hold, just smiled and scoffed "not necessarily!" -

Thanks for the report! And I appreciate the pics you (& k3d, along with colemonkee, etc) have been posting regularly.

The one (& only) good thing about Astani slowing work on his proj, or actually stopping it, is that it will help stagger & space out condo & apt devlpt over the next few yrs.

Although there is waaaayyy less new housing being built in DTLA compared with cities like Miami, it's still anyone's guess at what moment a hood, here or anywhere, reaches the saturation point. I've heard the pace of sales of condos at the Market lofts proj did slow down noticeably a few months after ppl originally lined up to for the first release. Don't know how things are doing there right now, esp with Ralphs opening in just a few wks. OTOH, I understand the bldg where you bought a condo sold out not long after it was completed.
     
     
  #337  
Old Posted Jun 10, 2007, 8:28 PM
edluva edluva is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 6,118
Quote:
Originally Posted by citywatch View Post
That effort envisions creating more shared neighborhood garages that would meet the needs of visitors and residents. But the CRA and some city leaders are calling for less reliance on parking and more dependence on public transit. In fact, the original adaptive reuse ordinance, which was approved in 1999, placed minimal parking requirements upon developers. The problem is that few renters and homebuyers are willing to hassle with walking to an off-site garage or lot, which is why many buildings originally slated for conversion continue to languish.
now do you see that la's fundamental problem is with mobility, and not utility wires? our tourists? the reason we don't get concentrated, urban developments on a wide scale is because even with minimized parking requirements, it's difficult to create entire neighborhoods to sell to the mainstream, as people would still need and want a car. the hottest developments in la are the (suburban) ones that accomodate parking right underneath - not genuinely urban.

do you see that with mass transit, we don't need to worry about telephone wires, since getting around the city without a car would be so easy that it would make sense for regular everyday folks to live without a car, and that developers could build tons of projects without needing to consider digging expensive parking garages everywhere, passing on the savings to us. do you see that with mass transit, "deadzones" would automatically disappear because the popular demand for true urban living would prompt developers to fill them at a faster rate than already occurs now? and with "prettier" buildings, not the — you and some other forumers are so desperate to accept?

i really don't understand why you think this is so complicated and "intellectual". it's actually quite simple. it's the solution that's complicated - being how do we get a comprehensive mass trans network built in a politically hostile env't?

as for manhattan, sure there's tons of traffic, but considering their population density is around 70kppsm and the daytime density hovers around 125kppsm over 23sq miles of land (la merely has isolated census tracts that hit 100kppsm), i'd give them a break. that and their city doesn't look like "hix in the stix" (because, again, people are willing to live there, and demand for dense, good looking developments which are geared toward walking as the norm, whereas in la, people will demand underground garages and ugly low-density developments geared toward cars, and nimbys will fight against density all over the city citing their concern for increased traffic). that the majority of residents don't drive in manhattan speaks for itself.
     
     
  #338  
Old Posted Jun 10, 2007, 9:01 PM
LongBeachUrbanist's Avatar
LongBeachUrbanist LongBeachUrbanist is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 2,578
I've got to point out a big, obvious distinction between DTLA and Miami. Unlike Miami (or San Francisco, Chicago, etc.), Downtown L.A. has very limited natural appeal. There is no spectacular panorama, no beach and no fresh ocean air. The hills are fine (when the air is clear), and the river, well, you know about the river. But none of these are enough in themselves to draw tourists, residents, or investors.

So how can Downtown L.A. overcome its lack of a beautiful beach, river or bay? It can do this by focusing on becoming a spectacular urban place. Downtown's leadership (and property owners) should focus not just on playing catch-up, but on achieving the highest standards of a world-class city. Yes, we need to get rid of dead-zones. But set the bar higher. How about a grid of well-landscaped boulevards that anyone would enjoy walking? How about a central square that is so beautiful that it's featured in postcards and documentaries? How about a landmark so spectacular it comes to symbolize the city and its renaissance?

DTLA will never compete directly with Miami, but it can compete with, say, Midtown Manhattan. But only if we start seriously raising our standards.

Last edited by LongBeachUrbanist; Jun 10, 2007 at 9:24 PM.
     
     
  #339  
Old Posted Jun 10, 2007, 9:16 PM
LongBeachUrbanist's Avatar
LongBeachUrbanist LongBeachUrbanist is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 2,578
Quote:
Originally Posted by edluva View Post
that and their city doesn't look like "hix in the stix" (because, again, people are willing to live there, and demand for dense, good looking developments which are geared toward walking as the norm, whereas in la, people will demand underground garages and ugly low-density developments geared toward cars, and nimbys will fight against density all over the city citing their concern for increased traffic).
Well said.

There are three perspectives of a city:

1) the perspective from the ground, as a pedestrian
2) the perspective from a car, as a driver
3) the perspective from outer space, as a skyscraper fan looking at Google maps

Perspective #2 doesn't care about the look of the city. The person in the car doesn't have time to appreciate the architecture: he just wants to find his way through traffic. Perspective #3 is fine but is too far removed to see the actual issues that need to be dealt with.

To me, the most imporant perspective is the first one. So let's think about the impression anyone (tourist, resident, worker, anyone) would have of Pershing Square. Or Macy's Plaza. Or Civic Center. Compare these places to other world-class cities, and it should be obvious (non-intellectually) what needs to be fixed.

Transit will lead to walking, and walking will lead to demands for a better looking city.
     
     
  #340  
Old Posted Jun 10, 2007, 9:37 PM
citywatch citywatch is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 6,733
Quote:
Originally Posted by LongBeachUrbanist View Post
So let's think about the impression anyone (tourist, resident, worker, anyone) would have of Pershing Square.
Interesting that you should mention that because I just came across the following pic, the view ppl have when looking north from Pershing:



This location is only a few hundred ft from a Red line station, & is one of those fugly deadzones that certainly doesn't encourage ppl to wanna hang or walk around the hood. That's why you better believe I'm gonna parrrty & celebrate when a proj like this is being proposed, much less under actual devlpt.

BTW, parkfifth's web site has been modified to include a few new graphics. Mostly generic stuff, but one of them shows a closer view of the facade of the balconies, & another one shows what a balcony will look like as seen from inside a condo. Yeeeooww, glass side railings!!? They may be slick & all, & great for wide open views. But if you're an acrophobe, stand back!!!

I notice the pool deck of the Eastern columbia bldg also has glass sided railings. I just wouldn't want to have to lean over the side of them, windex in hand, when they need to be cleaned.

And assuming the devlpr of Parkfifth won't be toying with us the way Astani has been doing with his Concerto site, when ground is broken for this proj, you can be sure I'm gonna be


Dreaming Big at Park Fifth

Cantaloupe Martinis, Free MOCA Memberships and Sky-High Living

by Kathryn Maese

Arguably one of the biggest projects - both in size and impact - set to unfold in Downtown Los Angeles, Park Fifth's vertical aspirations have captured the imagination of architecture buffs, city planners, and of course, residents who live here. So when I received an invite to attend a "salon" at the Museum of Contemporary Art to officially introduce Park Fifth to the Downtown community, I was more than a little curious.

Set to soar 76 stories high, with a 218-room five-star hotel and 732 condos, the project will certainly transform the area around Pershing Square and add to Downtown's growing forest of iconic high-rises.

Descending the stairs into one of MOCA's galleries, an intimate gathering of local leaders, including former Mayor Jim Hahn, as well as real estate brokers, developers and others intrigued by the luxury project, munched on Wolfgang Puck appetizers and milled about with signature Park Fifth Martinis - a potent cantaloupe-flavored concoction that I was told may be served at the hotel when it opens in 2010.

Hosted by philanthropist Andrea Van de Kamp, the mixer was a chance for the public to get a sneak peak at the project's model and renderings. More to the point, those in attendance were invited to participate in the first release of the condos for reservation. Though the sleek two-level sales office is set to open this summer in the Gas Company Tower across from the future site, and ground won't be broken until early next year, interest is already going strong.

Many of my neighbors and fellow Downtown denizens speak animatedly about the mammoth project, which is on track to become the tallest residential tower in the West and give Library Tower a run for its money. Park Fifth will overlook the northern end of Pershing Square at Fifth and Olive streets, a cold, concrete-bound park that's rarely used except for the winter ice rink and spate of summer concerts.

As project manager Aimee Lopez explained to me during last week's event, an architect has been hired to work on improving the park both for the community and for the project's future residents. Though few details have been set for Pershing Square's redesign, it seems a promising step for locals sorely in need of a real central park.

It also appears developer David Houk has begun early community outreach in the form of a unique partnership with MOCA that will bring his future tenants a free five-year museum membership and ultimately help support the institution in later years. (I got a soap dish from Waterworks when I bought my condo.)

Though it was uncertain whether Hahn would reserve a unit, as Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger did at the recent groundbreaking for the Ritz condos atop the Convention Center hotel, many at the event clamored for a first crack at getting their name on the priority reservation list.

I remember back when I was house-hunting Downtown a few years ago and getting on an interest list was considered a coup, with so much frenzy surrounding the process it was nearly impossible to get in anywhere. But these days, the market is slower and projects that once had more buyers than units are now having to work for every sale - just the other day a sales person from 1100 Wilshire called to see if I was interested in one of the one-bedroom units and flats still available (I'd attended one of their weekend open houses out of curiosity).

These days the latest marketing push is the idea of a vertical California lifestyle. A Park Fifth's brochure I snagged at the party shows a woman in a sparkly silver gown and a man in a tuxedo heading out for the evening, with the city lights beckoning from their condo in the sky. The cover reads, "Downtown is looking up." Indeed, iconic high-rises like this one, the Frank Gehry-designed Grand Avenue tower and the Convention Center hotel are transforming the way Angelenos think about city building.

According to their literature, Park Fifth is targeting "successful professionals in the prime of their lives" who can afford homes ranging from $400,000 to more than $3 million. The largest will be a two-story penthouse up to 3,000 square feet with a 1,200-square-foot patio (bigger than my condo). Each unit will include a "smart house" system that enables you to do everything from lower your shades to monitor security, and possibly even do the laundry.

Park Fifth certainly has enough flash to attract would-be buyers even in a slow cycle, with its mysterious promises of "infinity living" and "transformative possibilities." The reservation card asks buyers to check off the amenities that most interest them. Garden terrace? Check. Wine cellar? Check. Room service? Check. A Gourmet Academy where I can take cooking classes and taste wine? Check, check.

And when it comes to listing my goals, there are four options: purchase my first home, downsize, move up into a larger home or invest. I think for a minute, wondering where I will be financially and what the Downtown market will look like in three years when the project opens.

I boldly check the latter two options.

Hey, if they can build big, I can dream big. Especially with a Park Fifth Martini in my hand.

page 6, 6/11/2007
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Closed Thread

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > City Compilations
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 4:59 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.