LOS ANGELES | Downtown Project Rundown 3.0

[citywatch]

Originally Posted by Echo Park

I really think it comes down to political will and it wont get done if you sit back and tell yourself you're only being 'realistic'.

And since on a few occasions you've said----in a sarcastic tone----about the "sterile shiny towers" I "love so much", should I respond in a similar way towards your passion about rapid transit?

All the good intentions in the world are fine, but they won't change the fact that there remain huge barriers to improving the rail system in LA. Plus I'm guessing you wouldn't be too enthusiastic about merely upgrading the bus system.

And so just because I'm acknowledging the reality of transit in LA----unpleasant though it may be----doesn't make me feel sarcastic about ppl who are trying to change that situation.

[citywatch]

Originally Posted by JDRCRASH

How remarkably foolish and childish that decision was.......

And the day after the vote, the thing that stood out to me was a survey of precincts in LA county, written about in the newspaper, that indicated a large number of voters in East LA had approved the proposition as much as ppl living way out in the burbs. Getting new rail transit projs on the top of the agenda, other than some light rail like the Gold Line, has been slowed down ever since then.

[dktshb]

Originally Posted by JDRCRASH

Give it a rest dude, what kind of shit did I do now?

I think it's the fact that Macaroni grill is so pedestrian. I agree with some of the forumers who would rather have a more organic growth for downtown LA as opposed to all these suburban bland theme restaurants and shops with flashy signs that you can get in any place from Orange County or Oklahoma City. I would like to see Broadway reach it's full potential again but I'll want to slit my wrists if crap like Cheesecake factory, Nike Town and Hard Rock Cafe move in. I am also not a fan at all of LA live. Fortunately there are some promising things going on downtown too but these bland buildings with large flashy signs and tourist destinations are getting tiresome in Downtown and in Hollywood. I too feel LA deserves better than this.

[marc samuel]

Originally Posted by k3d

Sorry, I should have said Colori Italian restaurant. The food is great, and the pricing is surprisingly low. Nice atmosphere as well. Dark, exposed brick and cement walls, large prints of downtown construction and landmarks. Very comfortable there.

It really is a good place, plus I just realized that they deliver too! Just in case it's too busy inside...

[Just-In-Cali]

I guess my question to you guys...Echo, dktshb, edluva and others with similar dispositions, is what would you want to see happen to downtown LA that you WOULD approve of. Ed especially seems to have a stiffy for NY...but I must say...go to Time Square...and you arent going to find a bunch of cultural and organic growth. NY was a pit up until the mid 1990s...until it got all cleaned up and is suddenly NOW the model for organic growth. People are trying to compare what NY took 150 years to acheive up against the first blip of new growth in DTLA.
The only difference in the two...is in NY, all of the old buildings came first, and then later were filled with the "crappy suburban touristy" stuff...while here they are simply building the attractions first.
At least that is my take on it. Im sure the people of London viewed our 'great' cities, NY Chicago, Boston, San Fran with the same disdain as seems to be leveled at LA now. This idea of what an ideal city is cant be summed up by a bunch of people in a forum tossing snarky comments at each other.
In other news, we know the residential bust is having an effect, but what of office space in the city. Last reports were that the vacancy was getting much lower...enough so that some new Class A office space could be in the pipeline.

[BrandonJXN]

Originally Posted by SC_00_05

Well, I think he's stating this because Macaroni Grill is in no way whatsoever, where you should go for good Italian food. Same chain as Chilis, IIRC. Not bad, mind you, but certainly not the epitome of Italian.

Or maybe it's because white people eat there...

Anyway, thought this was a cool pic.


fridayinla

[jlrobe]

Originally Posted by edluva

^too hard to glean anything from the rendering. Just hope it avoids gaslampification. I think DTLA is at a point where redevelopment should just leave things be, just like any other neighborhood. We don't want a sterile family-friendly "restaurant-row" or "nightclub row" no matter how crowded and yuppified the streets. Downtown will never be manhattan or chicago's lakefront - it's too small to be analagous, and our various LES's, UES's, Greenwich Village's, and SOHO's are already established throughout the westside. It's a futile act trying to recreate all these things in the tiny little plot we call DTLA, and civic leaders and forumers who are pushing for a "24 hour city" status in DTLA really don't fundamentally understand LA for it's unique circumstances. DTLA is just another patch in the quilt stretching to the beach, just like the tip of Lower Manhattan is for the entire island. Don't hold any vainglorious delusions about DTLA being all things Manhattan to this vast city. Angelenos aspiring to create identity by looking elsewhere end up ego-tripping themselves to failure. We need a real mix which could only develop over many years time, and we need it integrated into the other neighborhoods of the basin. Good organic urbanism is like a seedling - you only want to supply the essentials to get things started.

Downtown LA and its surrounding dense neighorhoods will need time to grow completely. I think everyone on this board agrees with that. Most of us just want DTLA to turn a corner where future development is inevitable.

As for Chicago's lakefront, its way overrated. Your analysis of Manhattan is correct. No city in America will ever touch Manhattan, period.

[jlrobe]

Originally Posted by MapGoulet

Damn, I totally agree with you Edluva. Thanks for the balanced tone. The geographic reach of downtown, especially relative to the expanse of the urbanized "center" of LA, is too small, islolated, and incidental to support urbanism on a grand scale. And looking to other cities for inspiration is good for economic development, but bad for identity, perception, and growth of new culture. Regardless, it will be interesting to see what we do end up with in the next few years.

We already are seeing some examples. To me, South Park is largely sterile and devoid of community, however, I would say that the Old Bank District at 4th and Main feels to me to be the first "organic" neighborhood to hit LA in many years. Particulary now that other property owners (not just Gilmore) are spreading the retail and the rehab to neighboring buildings, and thus extending the neighborhood incrementally and without a grand plan.

I stongly disagree. Chinatown, South Central near Expo Park, Pico-union, westlake, ktown, and echo park, and hollywood could be one contiguous urban blob with a population equal to Washington DC's. Actually, all of those neighorhoods combined probably ALREADY equal Washington DC's total population. The thing is that they are not well oriented and run down. Over the next 25 years, they might densify and become vibrant and well served by rail. LA, east of la brea, is far more "dense" (albiet not elegant density) than most people realize.

[jlrobe]

Originally Posted by edluva

My Rx for this city is really simple - build dense rail lines all over the basin, free up zoning restrictions for density accordingly, and then leave everything the fuck alone for 25 years and stop trying so damn hard to be something. That's LA's problem - it tries too damn hard to be something else. You know the greatest things about LA, and I think most will agree with me, are those things which came about without trying whatsoever - e.g. ethnic hoods like K-town, little ethiopia, south central, etc., the race struggles narrative and its significance to our nation's history, west coast hip-hop, the decentralized layout despite its cursed byproducts of traffic, etc....yes there is a side to LA that is not vain and when accepted warts and all, is quite beautiful as an unfolding drama of urban life. Anybody remember the LA 2016 olympics video? if not, watch it, and then watch chicago's. That is a vain attempt at portrayal. Stop it already.

Amen. LA needs to only do the following
1) Build rail with reckless abondon
2) Reform tax laws and eliminate beauracracy to attract business.
3) Change zoning laws immensley. (less parking, more density)
4) Use affordable housing to keep the city diverse.

In 25 years, LA will be the place to be.

That is why I fight so hard for the redline extension. I think after the redline gets finished, Angelenos will be SHOCKED that they were deprived so long and DEMAND rail be built with reckless abandon. That is my thinking at least. In my mind, a completed rail line will put rail on the map in LA.

[jlrobe]

[QUOTE=citywatch;3321620][/b]That is not a surprise to me----although no less dissapointing----since a friend of a friend who works in city govt mentioned a few months ago that the devlpr would not begin construction in the first qtr of this yr, as first publicized. I remember originally thinking, after the earliest estimated start up date of Oct 07 came & went, that March 2008 sounded far off into the future. Now March sounds reasonable, with June or July or Sept sounding like a long time to wait.

However...


[/b]Since it seems that the pace of work on Concerto & Astani's bldg really is starting to fly, & to give the amt of new housing in the pipeline the most time possible to be absorbed, it's just as well that totally new projs not be piggybacking too closely with current devlpt. IOW, it's more realistic that the groundbreaking schedule for proposals like parkfifth & LA central be pushed forward. Maybe even Grand Ave too, although I still can't find enough patience to accept the idea of that proj not being under full, total construction til well after mid 2008.


[/b]DTLA really is the only hood in LA that offers a more urban setting. Others hoods popular in soCA tend to be more burban in their look & layout, inc SaMo or Westwood, Century City. DTLB has some urban qualities, but at this time it's scale & dimensions still are narrower than even DTLA. That's kind of offset by the advantage of an oceanfront location, but the advantage of more cultural options goes to DTLA.

Originally Posted by citywatch

[/b]Your RX ain't gonna happen anytime soon. Like it or not, for economic, logistical & political reasons, rail transit on a truly meaningful level in LA----for example, where the red line is extended all the way to SaMo----won't be taking place til most of us are old & gray. And, again, like it or not, NIMBYism will continue to run circles around zoning laws, regardless of how they're configured.

I cannot predict the future, but no transit will be the end of LA. Many people I know moved out of LA and to rail lines in DC and SF. I went to DC on business (I go often). I worked, slept, and played in DC all by rail. It is always the most fantastic and exciting thing to do. Sometimes I wonder if Angelenos have even been to DC?

I guess Angelenos (not necessarily those on this board) are too dumb to realize that zoning and rail will AUTOMATICALLY fix this city. Angelenos dont have to overthink this. WE need to stop chasing our tail. Build rail and zoning, and many of our problems will be solved.

[jlrobe]

Originally Posted by Echo Park

I don't understand this attitude. You're not exactly revealing any revelations when you continually beat this drum of "oh rail aint' gonna be built soon so just give up on it." I don't understand this aversion to rail. In my opinion, the largest obstacle in getting a comprehensive transit system in place aren't NIMBYs or lack of funding. It's lack of political will. There are methods and innovative ways of securing funds whether through private-public partnership, parcel taxes, voter initiatives. People won't hike taxes for rail unless the political will is there to show them that its a worthwhile investment. Transit should be LA's number one priority. If its one thing we all complain about as Angelenos and southern californias, whether we're an artist in Silver Lake, a factory worker in Torrance, a day laborer from Boyle Heights, a studio head in malibu, its traffic traffic traffic and goes beyond simply making our urban hoods pretty. Its a quality of life issue, one that wont be resolved by simply building those sterile shiny towers you love so much. Oh and as older propertyowners, hopefully NIMBYs will die off soon.

This is precisely why I have tried to gather signatures and educate people on the benefits of rail. Politicians arent the problem. NIMBYS arent the problem. Average apathetic expat middle class wannabe Angelenos are the reason we dont have rail. No one in LA cares about anything. This is the most apathetic town in the country, and it shows in our planning process. We are VERY close. We have built so much momentum. Read the lacitybeat, bottleneck blog, and even the la times. People are sick of traffic and they are finally willing to pay for a change.

http://www.subwaytothesea.org/actnow/endorse.php

I have a weburl, but I havent finished my website yet.

[edluva]

Originally Posted by Just-In-Cali

I guess my question to you guys...Echo, dktshb, edluva and others with similar dispositions, is what would you want to see happen to downtown LA that you WOULD approve of. Ed especially seems to have a stiffy for NY...but I must say...go to Time Square...and you arent going to find a bunch of cultural and organic growth. NY was a pit up until the mid 1990s...until it got all cleaned up and is suddenly NOW the model for organic growth. People are trying to compare what NY took 150 years to acheive up against the first blip of new growth in DTLA.
The only difference in the two...is in NY, all of the old buildings came first, and then later were filled with the "crappy suburban touristy" stuff...while here they are simply building the attractions first.
At least that is my take on it. Im sure the people of London viewed our 'great' cities, NY Chicago, Boston, San Fran with the same disdain as seems to be leveled at LA now. This idea of what an ideal city is cant be summed up by a bunch of people in a forum tossing snarky comments at each other.
In other news, we know the residential bust is having an effect, but what of office space in the city. Last reports were that the vacancy was getting much lower...enough so that some new Class A office space could be in the pipeline.

times square is lame as hell these days but it's organic in the sense that it is built on organic precedent (times square, like the rest of manhattan had organic origins, and isn't the vain attempt of some developer at creating from ground-up a self-contained "entertainment district" modeled half-heartedly on some other city's neighborhood. real neighborhoods don't model themselves - they just be. the other key thing is that times square is just another neighborhood, tied inextricably into the fabric that stretches over 23 or 322 square miles depending on how you look at it.

DTLA is a niche - it has tons of office space. It is a transit nexus. It is a mostly organic collection of pre-war edifices with beautifully ornate finishes. Let it be. It will develop without the Anschutz's and 3rd street ped-malls, and the vainglorious political wet-dreams which are actually narrated by their deeply hidden envy of misinterpreted 24 hour real *cities*

[LAofAnaheim]

In response to edluva's downtown comparison to NY, Chicago,...

Originally Posted by JDRCRASH

You need to stop this.

Nope! That was a great post and analysis by edluva. Please take time to read and understand his thoughts (and other forumers as well). It's a very well thought analysis, and did get me thinking about downtown's future as well.

[Wright Concept]

Originally Posted by jlrobe

I stongly disagree. Chinatown, South Central near Expo Park, Pico-union, westlake, ktown, and echo park, and hollywood could be one contiguous urban blob with a population equal to Washington DC's....The thing is that they are not well oriented and run down. Over the next 25 years, they might densify and become vibrant and well served by rail. LA, east of la brea, is far more "dense" (albiet not elegant density) than most people realize.

All of these neighborhoods what I call "Old Los Angeles" were developed because of the maze of bus, streetcar/interurban lines that connected with each other. There is already "elegant density" there all we've done is ripped out the street trees and sidewalks that makes neighborhood centers attractive in the first place for wider car boulevards.

In addition and I might get lynched for this but I feel for some of this density to thrive there need to have strategically placed parking structures at some rail stations or activity centers that can allow for the future dense growth that is being suggested to take place so that less street space is devoted to the car and idled traffic for people looking for a curb space and brought back to Pedestrians allowing neighborhoods to flourish. Even the returned street space would provide room for Bus Only lanes down many of the corridors very quickly and build up the basis for a strong network of these lanes to connect to the regional transit corridors in an organized systematic fashion.

Before NYC had the subway they had a maze of Streetcar lines. Before any major city had the subways they had streetcars that tied the communities together. In some cases the streetcar can be replaced with Bus-Only lanes and trolley buses.

In addition to the land-uses, zonings we've got to take a look at the street orientations where we start to convert a lot of small neighborhood streets by widening the curb parkways thus narrowing the street lane into one-way corridors thus slowing the street, making them quieter and more pedestrian friendly and provides the existing street room needed to provide the density for future 4-5 story apts/housing

[Wright Concept]

Originally Posted by edluva

DTLA is a niche - it has tons of office space. It is a transit nexus. It is a mostly organic collection of pre-war edifices with beautifully ornate finishes. Let it be. It will develop without the Anschutz's and 3rd street ped-malls, and the vainglorious political wet-dreams which are actually narrated by their deeply hidden envy of misinterpreted 24 hour real *cities*

The irony to this is all we need to do to create a 24 hour city are:

* Provide more flexible work scheduling instead of the 9 to 5
* Get LA to set 24 hour liquor license in strategic zones, Koreatown is a perfect example, that would enable bars/clubs to operate longer instead of last call at 2 AM which then in turn opens up local resturants, shops and stores to stay open longer.

[k3d]

Originally Posted by LAofAnaheim

In response to edluva's downtown comparison to NY, Chicago,...



Nope! That was a great post and analysis by edluva. Please take time to read and understand his thoughts (and other forumers as well). It's a very well thought analysis, and did get me thinking about downtown's future as well.

Nope yourself! I don't agree with her assertion that everyone interested in the development of downtown LA is envious of other cities like NY an Chicago. Most of her comments seem to originate from that very concept which is flawed. There are so many parts of downtown to like I wonder why she never includes any positive remarks about them. I like so many things about downtown the way it is now and the pace it is developing it is difficult to describe it all here. Maybe it is time I do my photo tour I've been meaning to do for so long.

Regarding Anschutz's developments, I personally don't think of LA Live as the Times Square West though they try to market it that way. It's not like anyone living downtown will go out EVERY night and go straight to LA Live ONLY and never go anywhere else downtown. It will probably be mostly people before and after events at Staples and Nokia. Though I'm sure there will be some good shows at the smaller venues around the Nokia Plaza.

Broadway, LA Live, transit, etc... will all (hopefully) move forward eventually, built as evisioned by the developer, but ultimately be just a part of the wide variation of themes that makes LA what it is now. Probably nothing anyone here says about them will have any effect on the outcome anyway.

I just wonder why people want to come here on the Skyscraper Page for Downtown Los Angeles development, and just rant and rave how DT doesn't meet ther expectations or is not going in the direction they prefer. Especially people that live here. (I don't remember if it was said that edluva lives here or not but it doesn't sound like it. But if she does then why?) Or why people come here to try and insult or put down anyone who doesn't agree with them.

[Just-In-Cali]

Originally Posted by k3d

I just wonder why people want to come here on the Skyscraper Page for Downtown Los Angeles development, and just rant and rave how DT doesn't meet ther expectations or is not going in the direction they prefer. Especially people that live here. (I don't remember if it was said that edluva lives here or not but it doesn't sound like it. But if she does then why?) Or why people come here to try and insult or put down anyone who doesn't agree with them.

THANK YOU!!!
Just when I had lost faith in this forum...

[Just-In-Cali]

Originally Posted by edluva

DTLA is a niche - it has tons of office space. It is a transit nexus. It is a mostly organic collection of pre-war edifices with beautifully ornate finishes. Let it be. It will develop without the Anschutz's and 3rd street ped-malls, and the vainglorious political wet-dreams which are actually narrated by their deeply hidden envy of misinterpreted 24 hour real *cities*

Actually, I agree with pretty much all you said, which is surprising considering our usually opposite stances on LA. I'm very pleased to see you using almost reverent words when describing downtown's old art deco structures.
You do have some very great insights and ideas, its just that you wrap them in this almost defensively argumentative way. I would, for one, never try and compare NY to LA. These are two totally different species of city. LA will never have the dense cultural history and uber urbane and "gothamesque" aura of NY, and NY will never have the light, open casual and free minded air of LA. Two cities, two coasts, two cultures. Love em both.

[k3d]

Yes, I do love NY, not envy.

[citywatch]

Originally Posted by jlrobe

I guess Angelenos (not necessarily those on this board) are too dumb to realize that zoning and rail will AUTOMATICALLY fix this city. Angelenos dont have to overthink this. WE need to stop chasing our tail. Build rail and zoning, and many of our problems will be solved.

Such changes will fix SOME aspects of LA, but not all. As I mentioned before, placing all our hopes & aspirations into rail transit (and I'm assuming almost no one here is gonna get thrilled with the idea of doing no more than upgrading the bus system) means we better be prepared for delayed gratification.

It's also no less naive to believe that a good rail system will be the savior of the city than it is to assume that projs like LA Live or Grand Ave----by themselves----will be the savior of DTLA.

LA actually had one of the most extensive rail systems a loong time ago, yet its existence didn't prevent the slow decline of DT, beginning around the 1940s onward. And there's the possibility that if we had a decent transit system today, even more ppl would choose to live farther away from LA----or have an easier time in doing so. I still remember some urbanist a long time ago theorizing that SF's BART system, by providing another option of travel in the bay area, made it that much more convenient for ppl to move to the burbs.

And regardless of zoning laws, the power of NIMBYism & NIMBYites will continue to be a nuisance for changing hoods, whether here, or SF, or Toronto, or NYC, or any number of burbs & smaller towns.

I don't like the pathetic, flimsy nature of LA's transit system and the squads of bellyaching NIMBYites, but they're both a reality we'll have to struggle with for yrs to come.