LOS ANGELES | Downtown Project Rundown 3.0

[Just-In-Cali]

No..no freudian slip...and we can save the psychoanalyzing for another forum
...But I can see your point city...and I agree, that a fleshed out mass transit for the city isnt a magic bullet, so to speak. But you need to admit that it cannot hurt it. I understand your "deadzone" argument. But you cannot build a pretty, gussied up and delightful district, and then make it such a hassle to traverse that people would rather just drive by it. Tomorrow I plan on being at Nokia Plaza for the inagural broadcast, and all I can think about it trying to get out of the area before the thousands of cars hit the roads to avoid traffic afterward. And yes, most people in SoCal use cars...MAYBE..if we had a transit system, it would foster a more pedestrian lifestyle, not just downtown, but all over the city. When that occurs, demand for space to be filled with pedestrian friendly fare will rise as people start walking more around these spaces. The two arent mutually exclusive. One could help the other, but as we have seen time and again, you can build the nicest and most dynamic structures and parks and such, but if people cant easily get to them and cant easily get away from them, you end up with yet another empty filler structure. LAB has a point, a transit system isnt just for DTLA's benefit...some people will chose to live in other places, but many may chose to move downtown. And just cuz we cant do it in 5 minutes, as apparently we can with dead zones, that doesnt mean we just say "Oh the hell with it". We can work on both, Im just saying...much to your chagrin, that I PERSONALLY feel that transit would be a priority, simply because a city paralyzed in traffic and wrought with pollution and parking problems, will not care much about dead zones downtown.

[citywatch]

^ LAB & just-in-cali, I just can't help but think that ppl who place alot of hope & trust in the idea that improved mass transit in LA will lead to a wonderful future---esp for DT----aren't setting themselves up for big disappointment & a big fall. Again, mainly cuz it will take billions & billions of $$ to get the job done right, & yrs & yrs----& yrs----to start, much less finish, the job. And that's even with Prop R having passed almost 3 months ago.

Moreover, I have to ask you two to keep a close eye on the way that the ppl around you live. How they react & behave when they go places, go to work in the morning, go to the grocery store, drop by friends houses, go to the movies.

i've mentioned this before, but someone in my family is a big fan of the environment, of the idea of mass transit, of friendly hoods w/ friendly type commutes. Things like that.

That's why I've never gotten over the fact this same person over a yr ago couldn't be bothered carpooling with me. I also was amazed that instead of moving to a hood closer to her workplace, she moved even farther away. And instead of wanting to buy only a small fuel efficient car, she looked dreamy eyed at buying something far bigger. And, of course, whenever she needs to go somewhere----esp quickly and easily----the idea of taking mass transit instead of her car never enters her mind (at least when I'm around).

More recently, she overheard me telling my kids that if they wanted some ice cream (or whatever it was) that instead of my driving them to the store, they should walk. She looked at me with skepticism & said "are you sure that's a good thing for children to do in this day & age??"

That kind of behavior says it all to me. More important, such ppl aren't exactly uncommon, esp here in LA.

One more thing: If I had to choose one thing, & one thing only, to make DT a better place----& it was a choice between either creating better transit in the hood or making the hood no longer quite so dead & depressing-----I'd definitely pick the latter option instead of the former.

The reason?

Well, look at a hood like the ones around Bev Hills, or Pacific palisades, or the westwood corridor, or some of the coastal towns like SaMo or Manhattan Bch. They're far from fwys, far from transit, esp the red line. And yet those parts of town are considered attractive & even prestigious to more ppl than not.

By contrast, too many ppl still see DTLA as a hood they're required to spend time in----cuz their job is there, or they have to visit a govt office there, or drop by the music ctr----rather than one they love being in.

[edluva]

citywatch - i understand you impatience with inaction, but that's not a counterpoint to prioritizing mass transit. because it doesn't answer the question of who will fill those deadzones. who's going to spend millions of dollars on a development which cannot deliver enough patrons to achieve profitability? to can you answer that one?

[Kingofthehill]

Where do people get this whole notion that a subway will boost property values EVERYWHERE, overnight?

Besides the fact that there are plenty of dumpy neighborhoods in NYC/Paris/etc with stellar transit options...look at some of the trashy areas hugging the Blue/Red Lines. Why no TODs? No increased property values? No gentrification? etc

Case in point, a photo I took of the nabe surrounding the Vermont/Sta.Monica stop:

[edluva]

well, it's obviously not that subways will solve the problems of each and every neighborhood it touches. but an expanded rail network will break the stalemate that's kept neighborhoods from densifying, gentrifying, etc. in other words, it gives such neighborhoods the option of doing so if economic/social conditions allow.

and NY and Paris have extremely vibrant cores which could not have developed were it not for their respective networks. LA has a 17 mile subway with two trunks that deliver the average person no incentive for switching. Of course we have not benefitted like NY or Paris.

look at it this way. if we built a single 17 mile stretch of freeway in the suburbs, who would use it? noone, right? but if that freeway were extended by 20 miles, and became part of an expansive network of freeways, then cities (suburbs) would grow and densify (to the extent allowable by autopian mobility) along the entire length of that network. wait, that's not a hypothetical...

[JDRCRASH]

No it isn't hypothetical, especially when history has shown that once suburbs reach a certain point of density, they just sit there for ages with the only change being add-ons to a house.

[Kingofthehill]

I wasn't talking about density, but rather property values, ed. I wholeheartedly agree about the density fact.

And you're right, NYC/Paris might not be a fitting example...Atlanta,Montreal or SF might be, though.

[edluva]

yup. SF and montreal continue to be desirable places to live in their respective cores, in large part because a large share of the population can conduct an urban lifestyle - on foot. they are both, like NY and Paris, disproportionately dense and prosperous. They are just smaller in scale.

Mass transit only works well when there is a dense network to tie individual neighborhoods together. Otherwise you have a "freeway on rails" that serves neither commuters nor city-dwellers very well...a waste of capacity. I criticize LA's insufficient "network" for this reason - it's useless in its confused 17 mile urban + 65 mile semi-commuter state. Dismissing mass transit based on the status quo is a bit unfair and premature. we haven't really given it a chance yet.

And property values are a useful but flawed reflection of a city's success, as this bubble has demonstrated. Chicago has lower property values across the board, and compared with NY or CA, will always be lower, but that belies Chicago's enviable wealth and urbanism. Personal income and GDP growth are more direct and fundamental.

[citywatch]

SF was a desirable place to live & visit well before BART was more than a pipe dream. That city actually is a good example of a combo of natural advantages (the beauty of the ocean & bay area hillsides) & devlpt pattern outweighing the importance & benefits of transit alone.

As for chicken or egg, although SF has always had more than a few deadzones & hovels----esp the hoods around what's now the Moscone convention ctr-----they've never been as noticeable as what's found in DTLA.

Beyond that, everyone has gotta be realistic.

Even with alot of $$$ going to, & ambitious planning over the next several yrs by the MTA, improving serious mass transit in LA won't mean too much more than extending the red line towards Westwood. At best, the subway may even reach all the way to SaMo. But that moment probably won't occur til most of us are nearing the age of having to live in retirement homes.

There also may be the creation of some intermodal connections in DT between the blue, red & gold lines.

Before all this occurs, there will be the completion of the Expo line. But to gauge the impact of that particular system on DT & hoods connected to it, look at the green line, or the blue line, or the gold line.

OK, they're nice & all. But have they been exactly earth shattering in the way we live in LA & the way we build things in our hoods? Have they been much more dramatic on devlpt patterns than what's pointed out by kingofthehill?

Way before the red line was completed in DT, I thought it would have been much too cynical to predict the subway's completion to at least North hollywood, & even originally only to MacArthur Pk or Wilshire/Vermont, would have had such limited impact on DT that in 2008 businesses still wouldn't be very interested in moving from the western part of the city-----around hoods like Bev Hills, century city, Westwood, SaMo-----to DT.

But guess what? Even today, alot of companies currently based far to the west of DT still aren't very interested in looking for space to call home that's way to the east in LA, in DT.

So if businesses don't wanna be in DT, if the big LA Live hotel going up in the hood had to be given special tax breaks before it broke ground (IOW, LA ain't exactly las Vegas), if many condo projs no longer will pencil out cuz housing prices no longer are high enough to justify their construction, all the red lines, blue lines, green lines, gold lines & expo lines will continue to have no more than modest impact on the hood.

However, yes, the one thing that would make the hood even less competitive than it is already is if current & proposed new mass transit disappeared. But that's a far cry from saying that expanding the red line & building other new rail systems will be the magic cure for what's long put a damper on DT.

[JDRCRASH]

The magic cure is obviously for those who live in 1 & 2 story houses truly starting to see the value of living in the urban core; perhaps to a degree that it would motivate them to move there, rather than abstaining to go to downtown at all. Of course, providing a significant Mass Transit system helps with that. More rails, whether below-grade, at-grade, or even above-grade, won't necessarily mean a far more prosperous Downtown, but it will help wean Los Angeles off its addiction to driving, and hopefully, will open the eyes of those born, raised, and living in bedroom communities as to what city life has to offer. Naturally, providing enough public space, especially parks, is important to encouraging people to visit or live in downtown by giving off a more clean, welcoming environment. In fact, I would consider building more open space just as important as building a comprehensibility transit network in the area. You need that everywhere. Transportation is important, but more needs to be done.

[Just-In-Cali]

Okay, city...I want you...the apparent crystal ball of city planning...to give us what YOU think our priorities should be. In order, please.
I really need to hear this, so maybe I can understand this POV you have.
It can do alot to improve quality of life in the city, and downtown.
You seem tobe in this mindset that we cant do one AND the other. Developers can spend their time making "citywatch" friendly filler for the deadzones all day and nite til the end of time. I still think...STILL... think that transit it a top priority. Besides, as it is now, we cant even fill the structures and space that is already downtown, lets not build more. Give the economy time to turn around, then worry about the next "Medallion" type filler.

[Mid-Michigan]

If Los Angeles didn't experience such a large sprawl, it's downtown could have been more attractive... and close to a large city/ skyline like New York. I've tried to find good stores, resturants in downtown Los Angeles and none was there... nor blocks of them.

[ladowntowner]

^ Not only that, Just-In-Cali, but I seriously question anyone who'd tear down existing structures in preference to surface lot parking deadzones, regardless of their condition. Admittedly, the structures he encourages demolition of are generally not of historic or architectural significance and have been allowed to degrade in condition, but they do represent an a store of "energy" if you will. What I'm saying is that it took a certain amount of energy at some point to construct these structures - therefore they are actually a "resource," or capital, and to tear them down and replace them, even with crappy surface parking lots, will require even more energy invested, producing aa energy "deficit." To improve these structures to current standards, aesthetically and otherwise, (until a "greater" use for that particular location surfaces) with modern, relevant and creative uses, and provide incentives for businesses and others to locate there would require substantially less energy (and cost) while bringing increased life to the area as well as tax revenue beyond what a lame surface parking lot would. Additionally, adding yet more parking will reduce the price of that commodity, thereby encouraging more to drive downtown rather than use public transit and providing more excuses not to fund transit projects while encouraging energy waste. Sounds a lot like a continuation of the past 50 years or so of local civic planning, or non-planning that got us here in the first place...

End result summary: more deadzone parking , traffic, wasted energy and less mass transit and tax revenue.

Heckuva job, citywatch!

Not all of us wish DTLA to be completely sterilized, or an urban inner-city version of Irvine/Mission Viejo. Part of the attraction is the edge, a little grittiness, sense of history, past and place.

[citywatch]

Originally Posted by Just-In-Cali

You seem tobe in this mindset that we cant do one AND the other.

Where did you get the idea that I believe improving a hood like DT can be achieved with one thing or the other, but not both, or a combination of factors?

However, when you say....

Developers can spend their time making "citywatch" friendly filler for the deadzones all day and nite til the end of time. I still think...STILL... think that transit it a top priority. Besides, as it is now, we cant even fill the structures and space that is already downtown, lets not build more. Give the economy time to turn around, then worry about the next "Medallion" type filler.

You certainly do state that we're at a point where we can do one thing but not the other. And given the economy, you're correct.

However, I'll ask if you had the choice between improving the hood through the process of new devlpt vs improving transit----& you could select one but not both options----what would you pick?

Here's another question: I wonder who is gonna be more disappointed over the next several decades?

The ppl who believe improving LA, esp DT, depends on making transit alot better, even though the scale of mass transit projs probably won't come more than a fraction close to what exists in cities like NYC. Again, given the $$ required, & the amt of time & planning the MTA faces over the next few decades, extending the red line to west LA, & a few other light rail projs are going to be the extent of what we'll see in mass transit in LA, at least before we're all senior citizens.

Or ppl like me who believe improving LA, & mainly DT, depends on making hoods less fugly & depressing, even though the scale of new devlpt probably will never be more than a fraction of what exists in cities like Hong Kong, NYC or various cities in Europe. Again, alot of businesses & ppl with $$ in SoCa still seem to favor hoods other than, & in many case far removed from, DT.

And, ladowntowner, I defer to your POV, since you----unlike me or most SSPers----do live in DT. Beyond that, I'd give your opinion even more benefit of the doubt if I'd been able to notice most ppl through the yrs saying they liked DT, much less loved it.

However, I can never get over the many times I've heard & read very negative reactions from way too many ppl towards DT. It's at those moments I wanna say, hey, it's not as bad as you say it is! In fact, it's much better than you make it sound!

[citywatch]

Originally Posted by JDRCRASH

The magic cure is obviously for those who live in 1 & 2 story houses truly starting to see the value of living in the urban core; perhaps to a degree that it would motivate them to move there, rather than abstaining to go to downtown at all. Of course, providing a significant Mass Transit system helps with that.

Your comment reminds me of the time I visited some of the burbs north of NYC. Even though the entire NY metro area is served by more subways & trains than any other city in the US, I was astounded by the how the density of devlpt in the burbs north of manhattan, up towards Connecticut, was quite low. Mile after mile of nothing but mostly big two story houses surrounded by way more land than what the typical house occupies in LA.

So has the fwy culture of LA encouraged the construction of mostly small houses crammed together on small parcels of land?

Another thing that is surprising to me: ppl started migrating to distant points throughout LA & SoCa well before the era of fwys, way before cars became very common & popular. In fact, some of the small towns of the SF valley, Riverside & OC were created over 90 yrs ago & were connected via the Big red railway system. I think some of those hoods are zzzzz even today, so I hate to think what they must have been like back in 1908.

One more thing: it says alot about our current economic conditions, at least for DT, that this forum would be even slower if it weren't for all this rambling about transit (which, sorry, is kind of OT).

It didn't seem that long ago----or come to think of it, it actually now seems like a million yrs ago----that I thought the DTLA thread in early 2009 would be full of postings about, & pics showing, groundbreaking on the parkfifth towers & work well underway on the Grand Ave proj.

[JDRCRASH]

^ For a second there I thought it was Edluva that posted that comment. Why the sudden negativity, citywatch? I can understand no ground-breaking on any of the projects you mentioned is disheartening, but didn't Stephen Friday, who was the primary source of photo updates, announce a few months ago that he was moving to the City of Lights?

What would be sweet is if Congress and the new administration somehow passed a $250 Billion bill dedicated to building and improving rail transportation in Los Angeles County......but that's probably not gonna happen......

[Just-In-Cali]

Well, city...My question still remains.
What would YOU do...if you had the power to do anything...to improve the quality of DTLA...and by proxy, the rest of the city?
Again, this isnt NY, and doesnt need to try to be. We need a taylor made system that integrates well with LA's needs. We cant just leave it as is and build "Groves" into every empty space just so we can look more postcard perfect. Los Angeles is a city...a large diverse city. Its not all going to look like the Irvine Spectrum. It's downtown is underdeveloped, and will remain so for many years. Skylines, as nice as they can be, dont comprise what makes a great city. Our skyline makes Paris and London look like Riverside Co...that doesnt mean anything though.
Deadzones are a nuisance, but can be dealt with.
When I was downtown yesterday at Nokia Plaza, We walked up to Bunker Hill, B of A Plaza and back down to Olympic..and passed several dead zones, and you know...I didnt die...or suddenly have a need to shop, but then say "OH MY GOD...THERE IS NOTHING HERE TO SHOP AT!!!"...I didnt get mugged, and didnt see dead bodies or the like...I just walked passed it to the next block and looked into the windows of several stores, or into the lobbies of one of the towers, or into a plaza full of people. I saw many empty storefronts, ones in old buildings , some in new ones that had never been leased. I'm more concerned with that.
And for the record, I would rather be disapointed with a not totally complete but well designed transit system that may not encourage as much growth as we hope, than in a congested mess of a city with a bunch of shiny new developments that look FABOULOUS from my spot, stuck on the east bound 10 at 7:30 PM.

[edluva]

citywatch, the way i look at it, you're doing the easy part, clearly identifying the problem (lack of inner-city developments) but so far you've dodged questions about what you think solutions of that problem should be. you have not demonstrated critical thought so far. like justincali, i also asked you to propose a real solution to that problem. so let's hear it...

and i have another question: you say we'll all be senior citizens by the time we get transit built. so is that an admission that transit may actually solve the problem eventually? because it's already common knowledge that positive change of any magnitude will take a very long time. your assertion that we'll be old and gray still doesn't go against my solution (that transit is required to bring people/$$/development to the city)

[citywatch]

^ the main point I've been trying to make is that ppl have to be realistic-----repeat: realistic----about issues related to DT, if not LA in general.

I could live in a dream world & say that by 2012, all the big companies in NYC will relocate to DTLA, forcing property owners to sell their land to devlprs, who'll put up big towers left & right.

That ppl in hoods like SaMo, manhattan bch, & pacific palisades will start saying they prefer DT to coastal LA. That companies located in century city will start saying DTLA is nicer & cleaner & much wealthier than their part of town.

I can say that Tom gilmore, cuz he's done such a good job in reviving the OBD, is also gonna soon have the power to buy up every old, vacant bldg in DT & fill it with ppl & stores, & restaurants, & they're all guaranteed to be booming.

I could live in an alternative reality & say that in my lifetime LA will have more subways than fwys. That the red line will be no less than 1,000 miles----better yet, 2,000 miles----in length. That every person in LA will be no more than 2 blocks from a subway station.

Sorry, folks, while I'd love that alternative world to suddenly pop into existence, I have to force myself to reallize I live in the real world.

And sorry if I come off as a downer. But I actually think that if ppl were more realistic about things, instead of setting themselves up for disappointment, they'll be far happier about, or more appreciative of, the small changes, the small improvements, in DT & LA in general too.

BTW, the Hilton Corp just announced today that not only are they not gonna move their hdrqrts to DTLA, they're not even gonna stay based in So Ca (or Bev Hills, where they've been located since the beginning).

Hilton said they're moving their main offices to Washington DC.

speaking of which, & BTW, I'll be happy if new president obama encourages Congress to finally provide enough $$$ to get the federal court house built at Broadway & Hill Sts. But if he & others can't get even that accomplished, than the greater $$$ required for far bigger projs like expanding the red line will be an even tougher task.

[edluva]

^but noone so far is living in the dream world (at least not me). i'm also known as being really negative here - but it's mostly because i am fully aware that LA is doomed to wallow in its current state for decades, since transit takes decades to build.

but at the same time, i also acknowledge that transit is the only way for fundamental change to happen. that cars will always generate congestion. that congestion will always prevent mobility. that immobility will always prevent patronage. that emptiness will always beget emptiness.

is it not realistic to acknowledge both facts? sounds more like you're being frustrated. but so far, you haven't denied that transit will eventually transform LA's core have you?

and again - what's your solution? you're still dodging the question. if you have a tangible, *realistic* alternative, i'd like to hear it...