LOS ANGELES | Downtown Project Rundown 3.0

[Echo Park]

Originally Posted by citywatch

means we better be prepared for delayed gratification.

Again, no one here believes we'll get a new line in the next 20 years, aside from a few extensions and possibly the downtown connector.

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.

the Metro =/= the pacific electric

The pacific electric acclerated suburban sprawl because it had lines going out to Brea, Whittier, and Newport Beach. A large glut of proposed lines for the metro would be intercity only, and should largely focus on the area between downtown and the 405 north of the 10 and south Hollywood Blvd, with spurs going out to the valley, south LA and the eastside. luckily the valley goldline extension to ontario was put on hold because that would be antithetical to that pursuit. also the PE cars were old, slow, clunky and inconvinient. the metro by comparison is sleek and fast (that is of course if it is appropriately grade separated) The BART by comparison is really just a glorified commuter only acting as municipal line for a few statinos once in SF city limits. we have metrolink for that purpose. you really cant compare to LA's situation pre-40s to its current 21st century form.

[jlrobe]

Originally Posted by citywatch

[/b]Such changes will fix SOME aspects of LA, but not all.

It will bring mobility which will bring jobs which will bring tax revenues. This will fix everything from hospitals, to the homeless, to crime by hiring more police officers. It wont fix everything, but mobility and economic competitiveness are important to great tax revenue and quality of life.

Zoning and planning brings more public spaces, parks, and affordable housing into the mix.

Originally Posted by citywatch

As I mentioned before, placing all our hopes & aspirations into rail transit means we better be prepared for delayed gratification.

So be it. I like celebrating LA's small victories (the reclaiming of hollywood and downtown to some degree), but I am not going to have the illusion that LA is fixed, becasue its not. I love alot of things about LA, but when I go back to SF and DC, and can IMMEDIATELY see the glaring differences between LA and those cities. LA has the opera, the plays, the events, the lectures, the universities, the beaches, the restaurants, and everything else that I love, but as a city, I am not going to lie and say it is fixed. Cities like Portland have far fewer ammenties (like a world class-ish opera and philharm, or a world class economy) but it at least isnt a broken city like Los Angeles. Again, I think for LA to become unbroken, it needs to have rail and proper zoning and planning. I dont care if it builds tall buildings to look at or more world class musuems. Without these enhacnements, LA's urban problems will never be solved long term. Again, I dont mind celebrating small victories (like the new bcam, the proposed restoration of a theatre in south central, the building of a new culture center, or 15 new awesome bars and restaurants opening), but I still contend that LA's longterm health will not be fixed without rail and zoning.

Originally Posted by citywatch

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.

It isnt naive at all. Mobility is a much larger and connected problem than you care to admit. LA is a diconnected region. We cant even add new jobs (NBC studios or new Federal Building) without people protesting them. We cant expand our ports without chocking ourselves to death. We cant attract new companies because mobility is a huge quality of life hit. We cant generate new revenue long term because we cant attract jobs. WE cant add alot of affordable housing because we cant densify our corridors. WE cant build new small businesses because parking requirements (lack of parking) drive them to the suburbs to do business.

Originally Posted by citywatch

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.

Which is how it exploded from cowtown to surpassing SF as king of the west by 1940. Our massive building of freeways allowed LA to continue to explode and catch chicago as the second biggest city in the US. Back then, freeways were adequate "enough" to achieve sufficient mobility. Mobility and Sprawl (affordable housing) allowed LA to explode. Now that LA is slowing to a crawl, it is losing its momentum. Building rail will do the same for LA in the 21st century as the red cars and early freeways did for it in the 20th century. Back then, mobility and affordable housing was key to LA's success, and it will remain key to LA's future.

Originally Posted by citywatch

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.

The BART system has really helped the Bay Area in many ways. If they had a comprehensive mass transit system in their economic center (aka Santa Clara County) it would be even better. They thought about building the bart into Stockton and Vallejo which would have been a huge deal to the bay area. In the end, the bay area's economy is one of the most robust in the nation, and transit isnt holding it back as much as it is holding LA back. FOr the bay area, its zoning. Even though they have mass transit, bay areans are VERY antigrowth. IN LA, if we combined mass transit with agressive growth, then we would have both affordable housing and transit. Transit doesnt do anything if you dont allow growth to follow it.

Originally Posted by citywatch

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.

NIMBYism is also a huge problem for LA. As I mentioned before, dumb apathetic Angelenos dont rally together to fight NIMBYism.

Originally Posted by citywatch

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.

NIMBY's can and will be defeated. Sooner or later, residents will demand transit be built in order to improve their quality of life.

Don't let pretty buildings and and trendy bars fool you into thinking LA has fixed its most pressing problems.

LA is an ideal location. It is a hub to asia, a key to America's west coast, and has wonderful weather. If you add proper planning and zoning, change tax laws, and build rail, businesses would be lined out the door to relocate to los angeles.

Overpriced housing, smog, nonexistent transit infrastructure, ugly looking city without a strong sense of community, on top of taxes and red tape makes businesses hate being here. Many businesses have to be here for various reasons, but the negatives are starting to mount up. The weather, beaches, and amenities, are no longer justifying the negatives.

If you change transit and thus zoning, then at least businesses have a reason to put up with the high costs of doing business.

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

Originally Posted by Wright Concept

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.

Amen!! ive been saying the same thing for years. the 2 AM last call needs to be done with ASAP.

[Quixote]

February 1, 2008


From Flickr, by fridayinla


From Flickr, by fridayinla


From Flickr, by fridayinla


From Flickr, by fridayinla

[DowntownCharlieBrown]

Great Discussion going here.

Which for me brings up a lot of questions. I don't want Broadway to end up looking, or feeling like the Grove (which I don't believe it will), but was LA Live (very Grove like) necessary. The Convention Center and all of South Park is under utilized. LA Live comes along and convention bookings are skyrocketing. From the numbers I have seen, I don't believe there are enough hotel rooms to accommodate the upcoming conventions. Waiting around for the area to grow organically, we may have seen the are slip backwards with the upcoming recession.

City cores can decay. There is no promise that leaving "it" alone will produce anything that any of us would want to live in. Leaving it alone is the DT we had in the recent past. Times Square was once full of hookers and drug users and not a safe place after dark. And it could have spread beyond that immediate area if the city didn't do something. While Times Square may not be the model, it is a safe zone crowded with people which makes the rest of Manhattan a more pleasant place to live.

I completely buy into that organic growth provides the most unique and desirable places for urbanest to live. But slipping into decay also happens organically. So while I want the city keep things moving in the right direction, I don't want them to get their hands in it too much.

[Quixote]

February 1, 2008


From Flickr, by fridayinla


From Flickr, by fridayinla

[Quixote]

February 1, 2008


From Flickr, by fridayinla


From Flickr, by fridayinla


From Flickr, by fridayinla


From Flickr, by fridayinla


From Flickr, by fridayinla


From Flickr, by fridayinla


From Flickr, by fridayinla

[Just-In-Cali]

Originally Posted by jlrobe

So be it. I like celebrating LA's small victories (the reclaiming of hollywood and downtown to some degree), but I am not going to have the illusion that LA is fixed, becasue its not. I love alot of things about LA, but when I go back to SF and DC, and can IMMEDIATELY see the glaring differences between LA and those cities. LA has the opera, the plays, the events, the lectures, the universities, the beaches, the restaurants, and everything else that I love, but as a city, I am not going to lie and say it is fixed. Cities like Portland have far fewer ammenties (like a world class-ish opera and philharm, or a world class economy) but it at least isnt a broken city like Los Angeles. Again, I think for LA to become unbroken, it needs to have rail and proper zoning and planning. I dont care if it builds tall buildings to look at or more world class musuems. Without these enhacnements, LA's urban problems will never be solved long term. Again, I dont mind celebrating small victories (like the new bcam, the proposed restoration of a theatre in south central, the building of a new culture center, or 15 new awesome bars and restaurants opening), but I still contend that LA's longterm health will not be fixed without rail and zoning.

It isnt naive at all. Mobility is a much larger and connected problem than you care to admit. LA is a diconnected region. We cant even add new jobs (NBC studios or new Federal Building) without people protesting them. We cant expand our ports without chocking ourselves to death. We cant attract new companies because mobility is a huge quality of life hit. We cant generate new revenue long term because we cant attract jobs. WE cant add alot of affordable housing because we cant densify our corridors. WE cant build new small businesses because parking requirements (lack of parking) drive them to the suburbs to do business.

Overpriced housing, smog, nonexistent transit infrastructure, ugly looking city without a strong sense of community, on top of taxes and red tape makes businesses hate being here. Many businesses have to be here for various reasons, but the negatives are starting to mount up. The weather, beaches, and amenities, are no longer justifying the negatives.

If you change transit and thus zoning, then at least businesses have a reason to put up with the high costs of doing business.

You defiantly have some valid and true points. There is much to be done in this city before we can say it is fixed...if you could consider it broken. I guess if you define a city by a standard set by Rust Belt cities like NY, Chicago, Philadelphia and so on, then yes, you might think it was a broken mess.
I will say the public transportation is key to helping the ever increasing congestion seen throughout LA, but I don't think some of the dire problems you are outlining are unique to this region. Name a single city in this country over 500,000 people that doesn't deal with every single issue that comes up in Los Angeles, and I will call BS.
Trying to compare LA to Portland is like comparing New York to Tulsa. Not even in the same realm. Price wise, NY and SF have the edge on that..and SF has suffered dearly for its overpriced and overcrowded streets, loosing near 100,000 residents since 1999.
LA is the king of the Sunbelt cities...evolving after the turn of the century, and shaped by the car. It is a life process that has left many problems for us.
Yet it telling that the fastest growing cities in the country are all Sunbelt cities...with this exact layout and culture. It may serve us well to see what is causing the stagnation in these "real" cities before we start to condemn others based on that model.

[towersla]

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

I've lived in Europe. I've spent time in Hong Kong, Shanghai, Singapore, Bangkok, Tokyo, Osaka, Kyoto, Nara, Sydney, Rome, Naples, Florence, Milan, Venice, Nice, Paris, Bordeaux, Monte Carlo, Berlin, Frankfurt, Amsterdam, Brussels, Antwerp, Ghent, London, Cambridge, Madrid, Barcelona, Valencia, Bilbao, Granada, Sevilla, Cordoba, Lisbon, Prague, Zurich, Bern, Cologne, Hamburg, Copenhagen, St. Petersburg, Oslo, Stockholm, Helsinki, Prague, Vienna, Salzburg, Riga, Athens, Cairo, Istanbul, Vancouver, Montreal, Toronto, Ottawa, New York, Boston, Philadelphia, Washington D.C., Baltimore, Atlanta, Miami, Orlando, St. Augustine, Knoxville, Nashville, Memphis, Chicago, Cleveland, Houston, Dallas, Phoenix, San Diego, San Francisco, Seattle, Portland, Las Vegas, Salt Lake City, Denver, Philadelphia, Mexico City, San Jose (Costa Rica), Caracas, Lima, Cuzco, Arequipa, São Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, Buenos Aires, Rosario, Santiago, Valparaiso, Vina del Mar et al.

There continue to be many first hand experiences to allow for compare and contrast. With each new urban opportunity, I marvel, I absorb. And I return to Los Angeles, my home downtown, ever more fulfilled and ever more content. Indeed, the glass is more than half full.

No city has it all, please go see for yourselves. LA has captured my spirit and my pride.

It's indeed my friends, the place to be!

[k3d]

^^^ Exactly!

[RuFFy]

Towers.. NY is great.. but I love LA.

[dktshb]

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.

For starters I want the main focus to be on transportation and TOD's and more green space. I want things built to a reasonable scale and I don't like new buildings that have 10 visible floors of parking at their base. We should try to limit the parking and if necessary, make it subterranean. I want a neighborhood downtown where a diverse group of people continue living and where independent chains and family owned operations thrive. We already have city walk and Hollywood. Did we really need LA live at the scale that it is? Could one of those theatres on Broadway been restored instead of building the Nokia? Does every new building have to have advertizing and jumbotrons???

I love this city... I'm not a hater and I want a vibrant downtown. I just think there is such a rush to get anything that in the long run we lose out.

[k3d]

WHAT is the frickin difference? Get off it already. It's not going to go away. So what is the point?

I'm not sure but wasn't the Staple Center (and Flower Lofts) the first projects that started the downtown "boom"? Isn't the increased convention revenue one of the big appeals to future hotel and restaurant developers? And on and on....

[Echo Park]

nice pics, friday. i actually kinda like the uncladded texture more than the cladding going on in LA live but it should be okay. Again as i said before that blank wall is a glaring regret. I hope once LA Live is up and running, and the activity around that project gets going, that it'll encourage developers to get projs like south fig/jardin/whatever and LA central going. and taht holiday inn needs be torn down (isn't holiday inn opening a branch in the historic core?)

[citywatch]

Originally Posted by Echo Park

The BART by comparison is really just a glorified commuter only acting as municipal line for a few statinos once in SF city limits.

More ppl than not would characterize BART as a more mature, complete version of a rail system than what we have here in LA, or at least compared with the red line. But more importantly, if BART doesn't square with your idea of a more advanced, or satisfying version of what passes for rail transit in LA, than you're setting yourself up for major disappointment. That's cuz the basic task of extending the red line is going to be a very, very tough job, & we'll be lucky to reach the level of BART before the yr 3050. BTW, I don't say that happily----that's just plain, cold reality. So ppl who are focused on transit had better develop a ton of patience, cuz it's going to take a long, long wait for the day when the city, in regards to mass transit, has reached the promised land.

Originally Posted by jlrobe

It isnt naive at all. Mobility is a much larger and connected problem than you care to admit. LA is a diconnected region. We cant even add new jobs (NBC studios or new Federal Building) without people protesting them. We cant expand our ports without chocking ourselves to death. We cant attract new companies because mobility is a huge quality of life hit.

I'm not claiming that the pathetic status of our transportation network is a minor problem, or anything to take lightly. Making most ppl in LA rely mainly on fwys, or a variety of bus routes, without also providing additional, better transit options, is a joke. What I am saying is that our transportation situation is one of several major issues that aren't helping LA.

So it comes down to just how high up someone wants to rank transit as a big problem.

The reason I don't place it on the highest rung of the city's agenda is because (1) it's a problem that will remain unresolved for a looong time, & I don't want to have to keep waiting til it's corrected in order to be optimistic about LA. And (2) it's because hoods like DT started going downhill way before our fwys became jammed, & way before there was a dire need to improve transit.

In fact, your following comment makes me realize there are other factors hurting the city, cuz, on one hand, this "cowtown" did well in spite of its flaws----lack of modern transit included----& also, on the other, it had a credibility problem way before transit & mobility started becoming major weak points.

Which is how it exploded from cowtown to surpassing SF as king of the west by 1940. Our massive building of freeways allowed LA to continue to explode and catch chicago as the second biggest city in the US. Back then, freeways were adequate "enough" to achieve sufficient mobility. Mobility and Sprawl (affordable housing) allowed LA to explode. Now that LA is slowing to a crawl, it is losing its momentum. Building rail will do the same for LA in the 21st century as the red cars and early freeways did for it in the 20th century. Back then, mobility and affordable housing was key to LA's success, and it will remain key to LA's future.

Originally Posted by dktshb

I want a neighborhood downtown where a diverse group of people continue living and where independent chains and family owned operations thrive. We already have city walk and Hollywood. Did we really need LA live at the scale that it is? Could one of those theatres on Broadway been restored instead of building the Nokia? Does every new building have to have advertizing and jumbotrons???

Just as long as you weren't complaining about, or really bothered by, the condition of the hood several yrs ago, when it was full of deadzones, gaps, empty sidewalks, empty bldgs, with almost everyone who worked there running off to the burbs ASAP, I can accept your grousing about various new projs. What I can't deal with are ppl who complain about a new devlpt being too this or that, or too one thing or the other, & then their eventually picking up & moving to another hood or city, cuz in their eyes DTLA never could be nice enough, or lively enough, or safe enough.

[jlrobe]

Everyone has things they feel LA needs the most. For many of us, it is "densification" through "manhattanization" (or at least killing dead zones). For me it is transit, land use, and zoning. It is what it is.

At any rate, as much as LA frustrates me with its silly policies and severe lack of transit, I still love walking on the beach in winter. I still love going to Venice, Santa Monica, Culver City, West LA, Mid-City, West Hollywood, Hollywood, Silverlake/Los Feliz/Echo Park, Downtown, Ktown to:

eat authentic ethnic food or haute cuisine; to watch film festivals, or listen to music festivals; to check out a new string of art galleries or listen to an international music ensemble; to watch generally entertaining shows like wicked or sophisticated peformances like La Boheme Opera at the music center; To do regular things like watch independent movies with a belgian beer at the landmark or to do unique things like watch 10 of the world's best dancers projected on eight 15 foot screens at the music center; For all of these things and more, I love LA.

IMHO, LA has a lot of work to do to fix its long standing problems. A few downtown highrises and LA live will not cure LA's deepest problems. Crime, Homelessness, lack of tax revenue, over beauaracratic systems, NIMBYs, isolation and private character, smog, traffic, grit, a clueless population, suburban blight, failing hospitals, ailing schools, scarce water supply, a polluted ocean, lack of green space, too many malls and wasted land, are serious problems that I cannot ignore. As much as I love LA and all the changes taking place, I always see that there is so much progress left to do. I don't want to come off as a pessimist. I still love finding out about new bars, restaurants, and buildings coming online. LA is always changing and offering me something new to explore and enjoy. Be that as it may, I am still passionate about trying to fix LA's deepest problems, and for me, the redline is the key.

If the redline gets completed, the city is effectively saying "we know transit costs billions of dollars, but we are making a committment to making LA a sustainable place to live".

In my mind, I think people who take it daily will realize that urbaness, mass transit, and density are not as bad as they thought it would be. I think LA will slowly become a less private and clueless city and begin focusing on true transit oriented development instead of mega developments. Navy Pier, Time Warner Center, Times Square, SF's glamorous Westfield mall are all great, but those places do not embody the true civic fabric of those cities.

Maybe its naive, but thinking about ways to help FIX LA's biggest problems allows me to take the good with the bad a little better.

Sorry for the diversion.

[dktshb]

Originally Posted by citywatch

[/b]More ppl than not would characterize BART as a more mature, complete version of a rail system than what we have here in LA, or at least compared with the red line. But more importantly, if BART doesn't square with your idea of a more advanced, or satisfying version of what passes for rail transit in LA, than you're setting yourself up for major disappointment. That's cuz the basic task of extending the red line is going to be a very, very tough job, & we'll be lucky to reach the level of BART before the yr 3050. BTW, I don't say that happily----that's just plain, cold reality. So ppl who are focused on transit had better develop a ton of patience, cuz it's going to take a long, long wait for the day when the city, in regards to mass transit, has reached the promised land.


[/b]I'm not claiming that the pathetic status of our transportation network is a minor problem, or anything to take lightly. Making most ppl in LA rely mainly on fwys, or a variety of bus routes, without also providing additional, better transit options, is a joke. What I am saying is that our transportation situation is one of several major issues that aren't helping LA.

So it comes down to just how high up someone wants to rank transit as a big problem.

The reason I don't place it on the highest rung of the city's agenda is because (1) it's a problem that will remain unresolved for a looong time, & I don't want to have to keep waiting til it's corrected in order to be optimistic about LA. And (2) it's because hoods like DT started going downhill way before our fwys became jammed, & way before there was a dire need to improve transit.

In fact, your following comment makes me realize there are other factors hurting the city, cuz, on one hand, this "cowtown" did well in spite of its flaws----lack of modern transit included----& also, on the other, it had a credibility problem way before transit & mobility started becoming major weak points.

[/b]


[/b]Just as long as you weren't complaining about, or really bothered by, the condition of the hood several yrs ago, when it was full of deadzones, gaps, empty sidewalks, empty bldgs, with almost everyone who worked there running off to the burbs ASAP, I can accept your grousing about various new projs. What I can't deal with are ppl who complain about a new devlpt being too this or that, or too one thing or the other, & then their eventually picking up & moving to another hood or city, cuz in their eyes DTLA never could be nice enough, or lively enough, or safe enough.

I never said Downtown LA was "too" anything and I certainly wouldn't ascertain that what I said was grousing any more than I would call your communications lacking a thoughtful vision. It is because I have civic pride for LA and its Downtown that I expect a little more out of these developments. I suppose in this day and age we bow out to the developer instead of demanding a little more thought, consideration and actual aesthetic go into a Developer's project.

Fortunately previous generations of Angelenos had great civic pride and left us with a large stock of not yet destroyed structures that still make this city beautiful and functional.

With regard to your comment about people picking up and leaving, I've lived in Hollywood for 11 years and 11 years ago there were security guards at most every apt. complex in Hollywood south of Fountain. Every morning 10 feet from my second floor balcony were homeless people sleeping in the alley... A little frick'n crime and homelessness isn't and never was a deterrent for me.

[ocman]

Originally Posted by Wright Concept

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.

Except that Los Angeles doesn't really have any jurisdiction to implement any of these fixes. The 2 am last call is statewide mandated, and it's simply unthinkable that the city could or would persuade businesses to anger their employees by scheduling anything other than 9 to 5. There are more practicable fixes such as ridding downtown of the ubiquity of homeless persons and providing more street lighting and patrols, which the city is already trying to do but could always try harder.

[edluva]

Originally Posted by Wright Concept

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.

actually, i'm being misunderstood. i was actually being ironic myself in saying that these idiotic ideas about creating a "24hr downtown" stem from fictional ideas these naive angeleno politicians/leaders hold about real urban centers such as manhattan or tokyo, when in reality, it is perhaps only the times square tourist trap, and not manhattan, that is actually "24 hrs" - see the irony is that politicans are walking promotionals who don't understand the product they're trying to sell. They're talking heads. They like many other laypeople see/experience times square as being "new york, a 24 hour city", and come back with their own envious vision for downtown LA, "our manhattan", leading to idiotic slogans like "L.A. live will be known as 'Times Square West'" and other "visions" which attest to their feeling that DTLA must encompass what manhattan encompasses - eg bev hills, hollywood, Samo, Weho, 24 hour jumbotrons, etc or it is somehow deficient as "LA's center". And then some of you here on SSP (not you), gobble it right up as though your brains were being fed directly from their mouths like automatons.

.when in actuality we need politicans who understand LA's "center" to be the entire stretch leading from DTLA to the westside, politicans who undestand that urban planning consists of the policy behind the developers, not the developers themselves. (but citywatch see's the end product only because he, like many angeleno politicians, developers, and consumers, likes shiny pretty things and is incapable of understanding things in relative depth)


and wright concept, i'm sure a late night liquor license would help a lot, but it would only help bring those who live immediate enough to mass transit, and so again, your strategy is limited by LA's auto-dependency, and we end up having a "city" the size of....well, koreatown.

downtowncharliebrown, DTLA's gentrification, as I know it to be, started from Tom Gilmore's (not to be confused with that other gilmore) adaptive reuse of the old bank district, which, along with the world-wide speculation and nationwide gentrification booms, led to investment in DTLA. LA Live did not make it happen, but rather, zoning changes allowing for adaptive reuse in the 90s coupled with good timing and a "recently" completed red line. And the main benefit to convention bookings was in the commitment of dollars to south park by anschutz et al long before official plans were actually laid out. Notice that LA Live is not even complete yet. The boom would have occured with or without LA Live - a hotel complex would have gone up there given the timing...just not necessarily one as horrendous as LA Live. But tying this into my ad-nauseam point - mass transit and zoning allowances enabled the boom to manifest from day one. They are much more foundationally relevant.

and to all of us here - you wanna see how shitty developing densely in LA is? look at LACMA - try to parse out in ballpark figures how much of that 160m or so of LACMA's expansion is going towards the 1200 car subterranean garage, or how many years WDCH was delayed because funding was depleted by garage construction. Try to imagine what else would have been built with the money spent on storing suburban cars for an hour and a half in bomb-proof caverns made of concrete, and try to imagine how different our city would have been had we had the infrastructure to enable alternate forms of mobility. This isn't about envy or dick-measuring. This is common sense.

[k3d]

From our new place at Luma I love the sound of the subway whistle when it exits the tunnel in front of Flower lofts and the bell on trip back. Reminds me of the train station I stayed by during some time I spent in Ridgewood, NJ.