LOS ANGELES | Downtown Project Rundown 3.0

[Sodha]

Regarding the transportation issue...I think this is most critical to developing a strong city. What's pathetic is that we have sprawled out b/c people want "someplace to park", thus we create these areas where transit is inaccessible (i.e. Century City, Burbank studios, Santa Clarita, etc...), thus people have no choice but to drive. If we start developing this mass transit system, people will want to work where they can commute via metro. I moved to downtown so I could walk to work, or take the Metro for a night out in Hollywood/Universal City/Long Beach. And, I have to tell you, it's awesome not having to worry about drinking & driving. We need to strongly advocate for an efficient mass transit system, like the Transit Coalition does. A strong system will allow for more development and get rid of these ridiculous parking requirements. Imagine a nice trolley going from South Park to the Historic Core. Quality life will shoot up. As much as we are all interested in LA building development, transportation will be the key driver. I can't wait for the day gas hits $5/gallon, people will HAVE TO start thinking of alternatives. Maybe then, we'll be allowed to convert some major corrider & freeway lanes to "bus only" or even remove lanes for rail transit. It's a sick dream, but it's the only way Angelinos will wake up and realize the car mess we are in.

I was in the California Science Center today and found out that car emissions is responsible for 1/2 of L.A.'s smog. And yet, we still want more roads?

[ocman]

I like "Central L.A." as well. It is both simple and fairly accurate. Also, it suggests that the zone is a focal point of the entire region.

like Central LA as well. I think whatever moniker people decide to use in their vernacular to describe an area is the main goal for me (to unify LA tied together by Wilshire Blvd.). I like the parallel with "Central London" and having the name "central" included really gives people who live and visit LA a strong idea that there is actually a "Central LA." A core. A heart of the city.

i like "central la", although it connotates the image of south central a bit. how about "wilshire corridor" or just "the corridor"? that way it doesn't risk exempting bevhils, samo, and weho as integral parts of the "city". in fact, i really like the name "wilshire center", but that's already being used for a smaller area.

God. Is this the SSP version of fan fiction?

[LB Life07]

I think that we all understand that rail should be first before freeways!! we have too many freeways already!! I think that they need to build the subway up Wilshire! When it comes to extending the gold line to ontario.....they need to scrap that and fix LA first!! finish the green line by extending it into the airport! and I think they should consider another light rail along the 405 going from the valley with connections at the wilshire sub, the green line and finishing at the blue line in Long Beach!!

[citywatch]

Originally Posted by LosAngelesSportsFan

The area between LA Live and Transamerica has many many towers in the 25 - 50 story range, somewhere around 15 - 25 towers, many breaking ground in the next 5 months plus a couple under construction (Evo at 23 stories, Hanover at 27).

You definitely are the eternal optimist, LASF, the yin to the yang of those ppl (like me) who hope you're right but suspect that probably the only new major change that will be taking place between today & the end of the yr is the parking lot across from Disney Hall being torn down to make way for the Grand Ave proj, not to mention work finally starting (next wk) on the medallion. Right now, esp after finally getting answers to what's been going on with the long delayed Concerto & Medallion projs, I'm fine with that. So anything else will be gravy.

Meanwhile, nothing better than seeing a former gap like a bldg on 6th St, which had been sitting vacant for several yrs but now houses this bar, come to life:


A Drunker Crowd of Sushers


Library Bar, new bar in LA downtown. Book shelves line the wall of a corner of the bar.
(Lawrence K. Ho / LAT)

Library Bar is the perfect spot to find boozy bookish types.

By Heidi Siegmund Cuda, Special to The Times

Remember when downtown nightlife was just Al's Bar and Gorky's? Now it's so cosmopolitan you can order one on every corner. A Cosmo, that is. Take the Library Bar, a bookish new watering hole kitty-corner to the Standard. You can curl up with an Edith Piaf biography, while downing a Lady Chatterly's Lover, just one of the inventive cocktails on the menu.

The elegant bar on the bottom level of the Library Court Lofts at 6th and Hope is aiming to offer well-heeled professionals a fine selection of world-class brews (no Bud Light here) and handcrafted cocktails that raise the game of the downtown's bar scene.

"It's located in the financial district, which is a safe part of downtown," says Will Shamlian, who owns the bar with partner Michael Leko. "We definitely wanted to take things up a few notches, give the neighborhood a stylish upscale pub and we figured, just with the overflow from the Standard, it was a no-brainer."

Graphic designer Joseph Stelly is a Library Bar regular who kills time at the lounge after work while traffic settles down. "I've been to all the new bars that've opened up here in the last year, but this is my spot," says Stelly, 37. "You can go anywhere and get a drink, but the people who work here are genuine. They remember your name, remember your drink and you can tell how much care and quality they put into making the club."

Shamlian and Leko both brought long resumes into this venture. The two met while working at Mezzaluna in Brentwood and each went on to success. Shamlian was a partner in Daddy's, and Leko founded the Eat Well chain. They teamed to found such bars as the 4100 Bar in Silver Lake, Sapphire in Studio City and Chalet in Eagle Rock, but they've hit their stride with Library Bar.

The intimate spot exudes class. The bathrooms are made with marble, and the bar features custom millwork. Blue leather barstools and amber couches make the design warm and posh. Interior brick walls add to the warmth, while black-and-white photos of vintage potholes give it a nice urban edge. A private area is made whimsical with a chandelier made of antlers, but it's the bar's floor-to-ceiling book collection that's the real coup.

Set around a fireplace with lighted candles inside, the library has become the place to strike up a conversation over a speed read of Tolstoy's "War and Peace" or Julia Phillips' "You'll Never Eat Lunch in This Town Again." There are also astrology books and a 425-page tome titled "Sushi for Beginners."

Library Bar's glamazon bartender Brianna Rettig, a motocross aficionado who's a hit with the customers, was even wooed in the library. "A customer asked me out by slipping a love note in a romance novel, and telling me to turn to page 40," she says. "I thought that was pretty cool."

The music selection on the club's jukebox also stokes the flame of love.

"They've got the best jukebox in town," says Joe Smith, a customer who loitered outside the bar one Saturday evening waiting for it to open. "Any place that's got Social Distortion's 'Somewhere Between Heaven and Hell' is all right with me."

To add to the mood, guests can choose from Marvin Gaye, Fleetwood Mac, Willie Nelson, Sergio Mendes, the Smiths, Sublime or Joe Jackson.

And although they don't serve food, the bar is adjacent to a Wolfgang Puck Gourmet Express, which will deliver anything off its menu to Library Bar guests so they can nosh while sampling from beer sommelier Christina Perozzi's choice brews or mixologist Peter Birmingham's über-fresh cocktail list. Think house-made syrups and organic juices made from blueberries, pineapples and pomegranates.

"I used to walk by when they were building it," Stelly says. "It was worth the wait. I meet people here all the time and now I really can't imagine downtown without it."

[LongBeachUrbanist]

Originally Posted by citywatch

You definitely are the eternal optimist, LASF, the yin to the yang of those ppl (like me) who hope you're right...

Yin is generally associated the negative, and yang with the positive. So technically, LASF would be the yang to your yin!

[unmentioned]

ThreeHundred - Thanks. I actually work for the Planning Division of the City of Riverside. So if anyone cares at all about Riversippi's growth too, I can answer any questions.

More importantly,

I really like what people have been saying on here about, when automobile travel simply becomes too difficult in Los Angeles, the concept of removing freeway lanes to make way for transit...

Think about it. Freeways already go where everyone needs to go, really. If the center 2 to 4 lanes of all the major highways could be sacrificed for a clean, efficient, speedy, accessible transit infrastructure, think about how getting around LA would be. I love how the Gold Line goes down the center of the 210 as it is; imagine sitting comfortably in a fast-moving tramcar on the 110 or whereever, as the gridlocked freeway whizzes past you on both sides.

As Riverside County mentally prepares to make the leap to 2nd most populous county, the population is expected to triple in forty years. There are four east-west freeways that link the IE with the coastal megalopolis: the 10, the 210, the 60, and the 91, all of which are hell as it is... and there's simply nowhere else to add a new one. As pricy rumours of double-decking this and tunneling under that flutter about, people continue to miss the point: Freeways are NOT the answer. Metrolink's rail service is a worthy start, but transit options MUST be greatly expanded to deal with this sort of thing. Not to mention that the focus on the commuter lifestyle from east-to-west needs to be abolished and jobs need to be brought inland, but that's another discussion altogether.

I know this thread is not about Riverside, but it's the same sort of situation with LA; increasing freeway capacity is simply not a feasible option, and besides, you cant forget about induced traffic: build more lanes, and they will surely come in greater numbers to clog them up again.

California, especially its southern parts, has some serious, serious planning to do before midcentury rolls around. The best thing to do is educate people; if we can get officials to think like so many do on this thread, and agree that transit and density is key to a livable Los Angeles of tomorrow, then we are on the right track.

the end.

[LosAngelesBeauty]

^IF funds were infinite, I would say "Go right ahead and add train lines right through the center median of most freeways!" However, because funds are scarce, we need to focus on PRACTICAL rail before COMMUTER-style rail.

The Purple Line (formerly Red Line) down Wilshire Blvd. would be a more practical line that can actually be used to get around to get to the places you need to get to in shorter stops. Almost every station would be a "destination." This makes the line practical and will allow for more infill as well.

However COMMUTER-style lines are the ones that stray far from the City Center (West Central or Central LA, whatever you wanna call LA's City Center). It's the same as the paradigm used in Manhattan where commuter lines come in/out of it (the Long Island Railroad). In Los Angeles, true commuter rail is Metrolink. But some of our light-rail will resemble commuter-style rail, such as the Gold Line extension to Ontario Airport. Unless the line goes through dense areas that are each substantial pedestrian destinations (like Old Town Pasadena or Old Town Monrovia), most people will just bypass each station on their way to their final destination, which is probably LA. This makes it commuter-style.

PLUS, having rail go through freeway medians is not the best idea if you want TODs (Transit Oriented Developments) to sprout up. They cannot be easily incorporated into any design that allows for TODs. Once you exit the station, you are usually entering an environment that is not exactly filled with density of retail/residential. It's a little different in Japan, Taiwan, etc. because they have density far beyond most cities in the US, so I have seen rail built in that way there, but I just don't think we should focus on rail down freeways in LA.

Let's focus on the City Center and expanding Metrolink to service the City Center. Funnel people into the city by commuter rail, and once they're in the city, they can move around freely by practical rail.


PRACTICAL RAIL:



COMMUTER RAIL:

[unmentioned]

I agree with essentially all of that, except that, for some reason, subways don't really strike me as practical, at least from an implementation standpoint... for those, you have to assemble a subterranean right-of-way, whereas with freeway lines, the right of way already exists, be it isolated as it may.

You're definitely right about transit-oriented development, though. However, is being adjacent to transit the only factor for determing transit orientation, or is being reasonably proximal, eg. walking distance, from transit enough?

I think the main difference is that you urge for transit to serve already dense areas, which is absolutely necessary in the short-term, while I urge for transit to extend to less-dense areas so that, in the mid- to long-term, they have an opportunity and a reason to densify.

Both noble and necessary, I think.

[jlrobe]

Originally Posted by LosAngelesBeauty

I like Central LA as well. I think whatever moniker people decide to use in their vernacular to describe an area is the main goal for me (to unify LA tied together by Wilshire Blvd.). I like the parallel with "Central London" and having the name "central" included really gives people who live and visit LA a strong idea that there is actually a "Central LA." A core. A heart of the city.

Nevertheless, the reason why I thought West Central was appropriate was for two reasons: 1) It actually describes the geographical location of the area because it is the western part of the region and centralized as well. It is on the MTA website listed as "West/Central."





2) I think it would give naming power to two strong communities, The Westside and Central City area.

Westside+Central City = West Central.

THat is a nice simple region, but I think Culver City, Venice, South santa monica, and silvelake/echo park/los feliz need to be in the mix. Those are towns full of jobs and urbanites who would like a piece of that centralized action!

[Sodha]

Originally Posted by LB Life07

I think that we all understand that rail should be first before freeways!! we have too many freeways already!! I think that they need to build the subway up Wilshire! When it comes to extending the gold line to ontario.....they need to scrap that and fix LA first!! finish the green line by extending it into the airport! and I think they should consider another light rail along the 405 going from the valley with connections at the wilshire sub, the green line and finishing at the blue line in Long Beach!!

The MTA has just commissioned a study for the Crenshaw Corrider, which somewhats parallels the 405. They will study everything from the Galleria/LAX/Green Line to the South connecting with the Red Line/Hollywood to the North. The study will take 18 months. I heard this is the next project after the completion of Expo to Santa Monica.

BTW, onto city compilation news again, I see the beginnings of a crane for Concerto as some of the steel for the crane has already been put in place. And, it looks like Riordan's Pub next to the Old Pantry has opened. They should have evening hours, I mean, c'mon, it's a pub. At least another dining option in South Park. I wonder if Riordan's is owned by the former mayor?

[LongBeachUrbanist]

^ It is. It was formerly the 'other room' of The Pantry, which the former mayor owns.

[LosAngelesBeauty]

Originally Posted by unmentioned

I agree with essentially all of that, except that, for some reason, subways don't really strike me as practical, at least from an implementation standpoint... for those, you have to assemble a subterranean right-of-way, whereas with freeway lines, the right of way already exists, be it isolated as it may.

It's not the easiest way to implement, you're right on that. However, it is practical because you can access subways as a pedestrian frequently if the subway line is built through a compact/densified urban area (i.e., Downtown LA/Koreatown, Manhattan, Chicago's Loop, etc.) You can actually USE IT frequently, at different stops, daily, to get to where you need to go. Much like in Manhattan, you hop on the subway frequently to go places.

Originally Posted by unmentioned

You're definitely right about transit-oriented development, though. However, is being adjacent to transit the only factor for determing transit orientation, or is being reasonably proximal, eg. walking distance, from transit enough?

It should not only be adjacent, but the station should be within/surrounded by pedestrian-oriented developments. This is best exemplified by the Gold Line going through Pasadena where TODs have sprouted up (Del Mar Station and Memorial Park Station) and complemented the already exisiting pedestrian-friendly built environment.

Developments can be "reasonably proximal" to train stations if it's substantial in size/energy. If you're getting off a train station, and you must walk a few blocks (depending on how large those blocks are), then the destination must be something worth walking to. The energy must be there when you get there to be worth the trek. People generally do no like walking if the built environment was not meant for humans.

Originally Posted by unmentioned

I think the main difference is that you urge for transit to serve already dense areas, which is absolutely necessary in the short-term, while I urge for transit to extend to less-dense areas so that, in the mid- to long-term, they have an opportunity and a reason to densify.

Both noble and necessary, I think.

Well, Manhattan wasn't built in a day, so at one point in time, its subway system (although nascent) went through sparser areas, I'm sure. However, it was almost inevitable that Manhattan would be densified to complement subway/mass transit because it is circumscribed by geographical constraints. It's on an island! You can't really build on water.

Now for Riverside's case, planning ahead of time is harder to predict where density would be high enough to warrant subway construction. Density is usually determined economically by geographical constraints (Hong Kong being on an island, SF being on a peninsula, Taipei surrounded by mountains, Manhattan on an island, etc.). LA has gotten denser because the SPRAWL HAS HIT THE WALL. It's finally able to follow the other densified cities paradigm model because it's becoming denser (it just took longer to get to the point). But where will the built environment in Riverside be suitable for pedestrians? I can only think of Downtown Riverside. If that were the case, I would say that Downtown Riverside needs to develop more density geared for pedestrians. More high-rise apt. and all the amenities to attract wealthier/middle class people as well to live inside it. Then have a mass transit system built to serve Downtown Riverside and then add many more trains to connect to LA/OC and the surrounding Riverside region.

[DTLA]

the truly depressing part about LA not having alternate transportation is that there used to be the Pacific Electric trains running through the city, but those were torn out so that the companies building the freeways could have a monopoly on transportation. Now we're left with freeways that have failed to keep up with traffic & a bunch of deserted train tracks running through LA/Orange County that do nothing but remind us of how we got screwed over by the people who put us in the mess we're in.

[LosAngelesBeauty]

^ That's partially true. The Red Cars at the time were slow and uncomfortable. I'm not saying they couldn't be upgraded to modern standards like today, but because they were so uncomfortable and slow, people wanted the speed and comfort of private automobiles to traverse through the sprawling Los Angeles. Dinner with the friends across town in Pasadena for someone who lived in Santa Monica wasn't out of the question anymore.

What they didn't anticipate was how popular Los Angeles would become to the world. It has attracted more foreign immigrants than almost anywhere (Koreans, Chinese, Armenians, Vietnamese, Jews, Japanese, Persians, English, etc. etc.). And it's been popular for domestic folk too. Just from anecdotal experience, I've heard many people from Utah, Las Vegas, even Chicago that wanted to move to LA. This has lead to the intense population growth and the byproduct is automobile traffic. The worst in the nation. What could have been a wonderful thing (to be a popular city) where streets were filled with people and activity, has turned out to be a city filled with cars to the rim.

Anyway, if the Red Cars were kept intact, perhaps the culture of riding mass transit by the middle class/upper class would have survived. And then you would have the political will to upgrade aging tracks & trains to modern technology. Then even the built environment would have been different. You would see a city leaning much more heavily toward pedestrian-oriented developments to serve the PE Red Cars and LARYs (Los Angeles Yellow Cars).

But it's not too late, as Downtown LA densifies and becomes more compact, filled with residents, office space, entertainment, shopping, restaurants, museums, cultural venues, etc. it'll provide the kind of energy people yearn for in this metropolis. Not all of LA County will, or should, be 100% urban. Only a fraction of that has to transform to make a huge difference.

[jlrobe]

Originally Posted by LAMetroGuy

Hmmm, maybe... "Don't Be a Menace to Central LA While Drinking Your Juice in the Hood"

LA needs to be rebranded. People usually refer to inner-cities as bad areas. People need to start thinking of inner-cities as places where the well-cultured urbanites live, work, and play. If all goes well, Central LA should be synonomous with cosmopolitan LA, or just as "the city". Right now, central LA still makes people think of boyz in the hood.

[StethJeff]

Originally Posted by jlrobe

THat is a nice simple region, but I think Culver City, Venice, South santa monica, and silvelake/echo park/los feliz need to be in the mix. Those are towns full of jobs and urbanites who would like a piece of that centralized action!

This is sort of the reason why I think that trying to define some sort of 'Central LA' is a meaningless waste of time. Since there is no obvious center to the city, people attempt to create one by picking the parts that suit them according to whatever their agenda is.

[Easy]

Originally Posted by unmentioned

I agree with essentially all of that, except that, for some reason, subways don't really strike me as practical, at least from an implementation standpoint... for those, you have to assemble a subterranean right-of-way, whereas with freeway lines, the right of way already exists, be it isolated as it may.

I don't really know what obtaining a subterranean ROW entails, but does the fact that our subway tunnels generally follow publicly owned land, like underneath Wilshire Blvd., help at all?

Personally I love mass transit, but I detest freeway lines. They are terrible places to wait for a train. They are uncomfortably loud and usually too far from destinations. I don't know what the decibel level is, but I'm sure that it's over 85dB which is the level where OSHA would require workers to wear earplugs. I wouldn't think that we would want to subject passengers to such conditions unless there were no other options.

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

in other news... the crane for concerto is going up!

[k3d]

Originally Posted by LosAngelesBeauty

^IF funds were infinite, I would say "Go right ahead and add train lines right through the center median of most freeways!" However, because funds are scarce, we need to focus on PRACTICAL rail before COMMUTER-style rail.

The Purple Line (formerly Red Line) down Wilshire Blvd. would be a more practical line that can actually be used to get around to get to the places you need to get to in shorter stops. Almost every station would be a "destination." This makes the line practical and will allow for more infill as well.

Senate panel lifts tunneling ban on L.A. subway
The Associated Press
Article Launched: 07/12/2007 04:25:27 PM PDT


WASHINGTON—A key U.S. Senate panel followed the House's lead Thursday and voted to lift a ban on tunneling through West Los Angeles, clearing one obstacle to extending a key subway line from downtown to the beaches of Santa Monica.
The Senate Appropriations Committee unanimously approved the measure by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., as part of a wider spending bill on transportation and housing programs.

The full House approved a similar measure in February.

The federal prohibition was originally pushed in 1986 by Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles. Waxman said at that time he feared construction could cause explosions of naturally occurring methane gas, something that had happened the year before. New research has convinced him and others that it can be done safely.

Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, a supporter of building the 13.2-mile, $4 billion extension, wants the prohibition lifted, as does the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority, which welcomed Thursday's action.

A Wilshire line could be a key link in the city's subway system—known as the Red Line—that now covers a meager 17 miles from downtown to the San Fernando Valley.

http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_6360008?nclick_check=1

[BrandonJXN]

Originally Posted by LosAngelesSportsFan

in other news... the crane for concerto is going up!

LosAngelesSportsFan: The eternal optimist. Commendable however.

Lol..bold/make your font larger as to derail the great 'what to call West LA' debate.