HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Closed Thread

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #4761  
Old Posted May 6, 2008, 6:52 PM
logandankr's Avatar
logandankr logandankr is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: dtlalaland
Posts: 83
I was wondering about this too. The only reason I can think of for South Group waiting to tear down that abandoned brick building (to make way for the promised park) is that the construction trailer sits right up against it. Maybe they're waiting to finish evo and get the trailer out of there to do the demo.

On multiple weekends there have been firefighters performing tests for demo on this building, so I guess that could be part of the hold-up as well??


Quote:
Originally Posted by citywatch View Post
I wonder why it's taking so long to tear down the small brick bldg that is south of Luma, which is the 3 floor structure visible behind Evo? I recall it looking clearly graffitied & abandoned, esp as seen from the Hope St side.

Last edited by logandankr; May 7, 2008 at 12:55 AM.
     
     
  #4762  
Old Posted May 6, 2008, 7:27 PM
JDRCRASH JDRCRASH is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Gabriel Valley
Posts: 8,099
__________________
Revelation 21:4

Last edited by JDRCRASH; May 6, 2008 at 7:47 PM.
     
     
  #4763  
Old Posted May 6, 2008, 7:42 PM
citywatch citywatch is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 6,710
Quote:
Originally Posted by vodila View Post
You weren't referring to Desmond's, were you?....

The desmond's bldg is much larger than the bldg I'm talking about, which is visible in colemonkee's photo. The one I was referring to is a small 3 story structure, with a yellow front & big graffiti on its south side, visible in this pic taken from Hope St:


fridayinla at flickr.com

The desmond's bldg is large enough & architecturally interesting enough to be worth salvaging & renovating. In comparison, the small brick bldg next to Luma isn't, & the other small bldgs along Hope directly south of that one really aren't worth saving.
     
     
  #4764  
Old Posted May 6, 2008, 7:46 PM
citywatch citywatch is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 6,710
Quote:
Originally Posted by logandankr View Post
On multiple weekends there have been firefighters performing tests for demo on this building, so I guess that could be part of the hold-up as well??
Sounds similar to what's been going in that 5 floor apt bldg on Olympic Blvd across from the new LA Live hotel. So hopefully both bldgs will be going to the big trashheap in the sky in the next few wks or months.
     
     
  #4765  
Old Posted May 6, 2008, 8:30 PM
BrandonJXN's Avatar
BrandonJXN BrandonJXN is offline
Ascension
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Riverside, California
Posts: 5,419
That small brick building next to Luma could very easily be turned into retail space. But a park is a park I suppose.
__________________
Washed Out
     
     
  #4766  
Old Posted May 6, 2008, 8:32 PM
BrandonJXN's Avatar
BrandonJXN BrandonJXN is offline
Ascension
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Riverside, California
Posts: 5,419
Quote:
Originally Posted by colemonkee View Post
^ This could be a great conversation, but echo park is right - it needs it's own thread. Please start one in the California forum.
Done. Check the LA forum.
__________________
Washed Out
     
     
  #4767  
Old Posted May 7, 2008, 12:33 AM
colemonkee's Avatar
colemonkee colemonkee is offline
Ridin' into the sunset
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 9,288
Interesting news about Maguire, the developer of the 50 story tower on 7th. Not sure what it says about the status of the project, but common sense would say the outlook doesn't look good for a start anytime soon.

From the Los Angeles Business Journal


Maguire Q1 Loss Widens

By ALLEN P. ROBERTS Jr.

Maguire Properties Inc. reported Tuesday that its first quarter loss more than tripled from a year ago, and the company continues to weigh its options.

Maguire Properties said its first-quarter loss widened to $43.8 million (-$1.03 per share) from $12.6 million (-27 cents) in the same period a year earlier.

Maguire’s revenues jumped 53 percent to $148 million. The real estate investment trust did not explain why its loss deepened while its revenues jumped. It said it will not hold a conference call as it is still reviewing strategic alternatives for the company.

Maguire is downtown L.A.’s biggest landlord. It owns eight downtown buildings including the 72-story US Bank Tower, the tallest building on the West Coast.

The Los Angeles-based company’s founder, Robert Maguire III, offered to buy 75 percent of the company last month – but his bid was rejected by a special independent committee of the board. Meanwhile, the Wall Street Journal has reported that investment firm Brookfield Properties Corp. sent a letter to the company offering to purchase Maguire's Los Angeles properties for nearly $750 million, but the company was silent on that matter.

Shares in Maguire closed up 8 cents to $17 Tuesday.
__________________
"Then each time Fleetwood would be not so much overcome by remorse as bedazzled at having been shown the secret backlands of wealth, and how sooner or later it depended on some act of murder, seldom limited to once."

Against the Day, Thomas Pynchon
     
     
  #4768  
Old Posted May 7, 2008, 4:14 PM
JDRCRASH JDRCRASH is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Gabriel Valley
Posts: 8,099
^
Yeah Colemonkee, i've been reading many articles lately on how Maguire is struggling financially. Not a positive sign for the progress of 755, that is for sure.
__________________
Revelation 21:4
     
     
  #4769  
Old Posted May 7, 2008, 6:18 PM
Echo Park Echo Park is offline
California goth
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: cardboard box on skid row
Posts: 1,745
^70% of your posts are just aping what someone else already said.
     
     
  #4770  
Old Posted May 7, 2008, 6:27 PM
JDRCRASH JDRCRASH is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Gabriel Valley
Posts: 8,099
Quote:
Originally Posted by Echo Park View Post
^70% of your posts are just aping what someone else already said.
I have nothing to say.....

Anyways, Hanover should be moved to "completed" pretty soon here.
__________________
Revelation 21:4
     
     
  #4771  
Old Posted May 7, 2008, 8:17 PM
Avalanche Avalanche is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 9
Hello,

I never post anything here, I tend to only ready. But it seems to me that some people constantly point out what bothers them in regards to what other people post. I think that is one of the main reasons why these threads get off topic. I hope this doesnt offend anyone, and I hope no one takes this as a personal attack. We should just let them be and ignore the comments and move on. It only leads to disputes.

Last edited by Avalanche; May 7, 2008 at 9:36 PM.
     
     
  #4772  
Old Posted May 7, 2008, 9:58 PM
DowntownCharlieBrown's Avatar
DowntownCharlieBrown DowntownCharlieBrown is offline
Good Grief
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Downtown, Orange County, L.A.
Posts: 537
^Watch it, or you're next!

I'm just kidding. I would like to extend a "Welcome to the Forum"

I will say, however, that if you read carefully, most of the "pointing out what bothers people" is really a teaching device in hopes that the person will post "correctly". Posting "correctly" has a lot of different meanings.
     
     
  #4773  
Old Posted May 7, 2008, 9:59 PM
MapGoulet MapGoulet is offline
Peace be with us
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Studio City
Posts: 303
Quote:
Originally Posted by logandankr View Post
I was wondering about this too. The only reason I can think of for South Group waiting to tear down that abandoned brick building (to make way for the promised park) is that the construction trailer sits right up against it. Maybe they're waiting to finish evo and get the trailer out of there to do the demo.

On multiple weekends there have been firefighters performing tests for demo on this building, so I guess that could be part of the hold-up as well??

Last I heard is that the South Group tried to buy the brick building, but the owner wouldn't sell -- was holding out for a higher price. So it just sits. But they have plans for the site if one day they can buy the building.
     
     
  #4774  
Old Posted May 7, 2008, 11:27 PM
colemonkee's Avatar
colemonkee colemonkee is offline
Ridin' into the sunset
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 9,288
The elusive MapGoulet returns! Welcome back sir!

Avalanche, welcome to the forum. Truer words could not be spoken.
__________________
"Then each time Fleetwood would be not so much overcome by remorse as bedazzled at having been shown the secret backlands of wealth, and how sooner or later it depended on some act of murder, seldom limited to once."

Against the Day, Thomas Pynchon
     
     
  #4775  
Old Posted May 8, 2008, 3:52 AM
colemonkee's Avatar
colemonkee colemonkee is offline
Ridin' into the sunset
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 9,288
Here's some good news in a time of constant bad news. I drove by the corner of Figueroa and Jefferson on my way home tonight and all the buildings on the University Gateway site have been leveled, and there's some serious heavy equipment on site. Could this be the start of construction?
__________________
"Then each time Fleetwood would be not so much overcome by remorse as bedazzled at having been shown the secret backlands of wealth, and how sooner or later it depended on some act of murder, seldom limited to once."

Against the Day, Thomas Pynchon
     
     
  #4776  
Old Posted May 8, 2008, 4:45 AM
vodila vodila is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hollywood at night, DTLA during the day
Posts: 31
^ That's some great news, colemonkee! The lawsuit was settled rather a long time ago, so it's about time they started construction! I remember first reading about it back in '04. Man, so many years of delay! Damn Conquest! Now if only USC can also get started on implementing its new masterplan (which I think goes before the city planners sometime soon), that area will totally change for the better. Imagine the Figueroa corridor being redeveloped with a continuous flow of mid- to high-rises, landscaped streets, a park above the 110 freeway, a pedestrian-friendly Jefferson with cafes and shops and what-have-you, and some well-needed redevelopment of the Coliseum and Sports Arena areas... damn, my mouth is watering like the Niagara. I hope the ExpoLine sparks a development boom. Go Trojans! Fight On!!!


     
     
  #4777  
Old Posted May 8, 2008, 5:26 AM
citywatch citywatch is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 6,710
Quote:
Originally Posted by colemonkee View Post
I drove by the corner of Figueroa and Jefferson on my way home tonight and all the buildings on the University Gateway site have been leveled, and there's some serious heavy equipment on site.

Fantastic! I've been waiting for that news for a looong time. I recall thinking yrs & yrs ago that site was a major embarrassment to the hood, to USC in particular. And since alot of VIPs have been driving right by or around there on their way to events at the Shrine auditorium for decades, getting that corner fixed up should never have taken so long to begin with. And improving it took way more yrs than it otherwise would have no thanks to the damn owner of large apt bldgs located near USC who sued the devlprs of the Gateway proj.

However, the timing ends up being a case of missed opportunity & irony since some major events once held at the Shrine now will be moving over to the Nokia theater.

As for mapgoulet's bit of insider news: oh, DAMN!! Not helping matters, I read that the city council passed a new law today that makes it tougher for dives like the Bristol hotel on 8th St, next to the golden gopher, or the Cecil Hotel to be renovated & converted to uses that don't involve low income ppl & subsidized activities.
     
     
  #4778  
Old Posted May 8, 2008, 5:40 AM
vodila vodila is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hollywood at night, DTLA during the day
Posts: 31
^ Here's that article.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-planning7-2008may07,0,6966377.story
From the Los Angeles Times

Los Angeles limits 'mansionization,' downtown hotel conversions

The City Council adopts rules curbing the size of remodeled homes on the flatlands and preserving low-income housing, mostly on skid row, that advocates fear are in danger of becoming lofts.
By Jessica Garrison and Cara Mia DiMassa
Los Angeles Times Staff Writers


May 7, 2008

The Los Angeles City Council on Tuesday approved new rules to address major byproducts of the gentrification that has swept the city: limiting the size of "mansionization" additions and making it harder for developers to convert low-income housing into luxury lofts.

The rules radically limit the size of remodeled homes in the city's flatlands to about 3,000 to 4,000 square feet in most cases, curtailing what homeowners say is a plague of giant, ugly stucco boxes that are killing neighborhood character.

On the other end of the spectrum, council members voted to preserve more than 18,700 units in residential hotels, mostly in downtown, that advocates worry are in danger of being turned into luxury lofts or condominiums, leaving many of the city's poorest with nowhere to live.

The controversial measures required heavy negotiation among activists, property owners and businesspeople. But in both cases, the unanimous decisions by council members represent recognition of the incredible pressures that rising property values and gentrification have exerted on virtually every corner of the city in recent years.

Despite the recent slowdown in the housing market, officials said the ordinances were necessary to protect neighborhoods in the future.

"When certain neighborhoods have homes on steroids and others no longer have a place for the poor to sleep, the social fabric is torn," said City Council President Eric Garcetti.

For years, the city has been criticized for not doing more to preserve the look and character of existing neighborhoods against "tear-downs," in which property owners demolish homes and replace them with dwellings often two or three times larger. Many other Southern California cities, including Beverly Hills and Santa Monica, have far more restrictive mansionization rules.

Activists also have been alarmed at how the revitalization of downtown L.A. has led some owners of residential hotels that for decades were the domain of the poor to remake their properties for the new downtown crowd.

Mercedes Marquez, general manager of the city's Housing Department, said the double action represented a move "to make sure that everybody has a say and stake" in the city.

The mansionization law was proposed more than two years ago, after residents complained that behemoth houses were invading communities across the city, dwarfing neighborhood scale, and destroying peace and privacy.

On Tuesday, Mark Lipis of Westwood brought council members poster-size photos of his neighbor's house towering over his own. He described the offending home as a 6,500-square-foot giant with a roof deck and an elevator.

Other residents from all over Los Angeles had similar complaints.

One woman invited the council to a backyard barbecue to experience the loss of privacy she said her neighbor's giant home had caused.

The new law limits most homes to a square footage about half the size of the lot, plus 400 square feet for a garage. It would affect 304,000 lots in the flatlands of Los Angeles, most of the city's single-family homes.

Since the average size of a home in Los Angeles is now 1,700 square feet and many lots are between 5,000 and 6,000 square feet, city officials said most homes still have plenty of room to grow before hitting the new limits.

Councilman Tom LaBonge said he hoped to see a similar law for the city's 100,000-plus hillside homes soon.

Building industry and real estate representatives, on the other hand, warned that the law would drive down property values and hurt the city's economy. They also decried what they said was the law's one-size-fits-all policy.

James Ward Litz, government affairs director for the Beverly Hills/Greater Los Angeles Assn. of Realtors, conceded that there is "bad design out there." But hurting property values is not the way to fix it, he said.

Others, including representatives from the building industry, cited a report commissioned by the city that said the law could lead to an "immediate decline" in property values.

But council members were easily persuaded otherwise, approving the measure 12 to 0. Council members Jack Weiss, Bernard C. Parks and Garcetti were absent for the vote. Garcetti, who made an appearance in support of the ordinance, was on jury duty.

The residential hotel ordinance passed 13 to 0, with Parks and Garcetti absent. It replaces a temporary measure approved in 2005, when there was a growing concern that available housing for the poor -- especially in downtown Los Angeles -- was rapidly dwindling amid the gentrification of historic neighborhoods. That ordinance was set to expire later in the month.

The law, which is modeled on a similar regulation in San Francisco, protects units in the 336 single-room-occupancy and residential hotels across the city, most of which are privately owned.

Owners who wish to convert their buildings may do so only if they meet a strict set of guidelines requiring them to replace the residential units within two miles of their building or pay a fee that would provide for acquisition of a new site plus 80% of the cost of constructing new units.

Councilwoman Jan Perry, who introduced the ordinance, said it would protect the city's residential housing stock while providing incentives to improve living conditions in the aging properties. Landlords who agreed to place all their units under a 55-year covenant for low-income tenants would qualify for city and state affordable housing funds.

Activists who support the new law said it provides strong protections for the city's poorest.

"We feel like it's a strong victory for tenants, one of the first victories in quite a while," said Becky Dennison of the Los Angeles Community Action Network, one of several dozen groups supporting the measure.

Veronica Perez Becker, vice president of legislative affairs for the Central City Assn., a business advocacy group, called the ordinance a "flexible policy that takes into account the needs of the business community."

Perez Becker said the ordinance "allows revitalization to continue," in part because there are provisions allowing owners to convert their buildings if they follow certain rules.

The owner of the downtown Cecil Hotel took issue with his building's designation as a residential hotel. In recent months, the Cecil has been the target of activists who allege that the owners have conducted prejudiced and illegal housing practices.

But Michael Ross told the council that most of his hotel's guests are tourists.

"We haven't been given due process," he said, adding that the ordinance would "give L.A. control over our property without recourse."

A lawyer for the Cecil filed a lawsuit against the city late Monday, seeking relief from the ordinance as well as $40 million in damages and fees.

Jane Usher, head of the city's Planning Commission, said the ordinances were important to Los Angeles' future.

"Both represent an understanding of the needs of our residents," she said. "The city needs to be home to people of every income."

[email protected]

[email protected]
     
     
  #4779  
Old Posted May 8, 2008, 6:35 AM
Echo Park Echo Park is offline
California goth
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: cardboard box on skid row
Posts: 1,745
Quote:
Originally Posted by citywatch View Post
As for mapgoulet's bit of insider news: oh, DAMN!! Not helping matters, I read that the city council passed a new law today that makes it tougher for dives like the Bristol hotel on 8th St, next to the golden gopher, or the Cecil Hotel to be renovated & converted to uses that don't involve low income ppl & subsidized activities.
It's a good resolution. DTLA needs to maintain a diversity of incomes.
     
     
  #4780  
Old Posted May 8, 2008, 6:41 AM
LosAngelesBeauty's Avatar
LosAngelesBeauty LosAngelesBeauty is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 6,610
^ Not only that, but now it gives property owners a legal direction to follow if they are inclined to pursue low-income-to-market rate housing conversions. Up until now because of the City Council's indecision on this subject, it's been ambiguous at best for these owners to make any decisions about their properties pertaining to these residential conversions - just look at the Bristol Hotel and the Rosslyn Lofts. Both properties have been sitting pretty much vacant over the past few years with no benefit for either the middle-class or poor.

I agree with the Central City Association that now this law forms a good compromise and will allow the city to evolve more responsibly.
__________________
DTLA Rising
     
     
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 9:37 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Privacy Statement - Top

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