LOS ANGELES | Downtown Project Rundown 3.0

[rabidrabid]

I'm new to this thread. I live in Chicago, but there's a good chance that I'll be moving to LA (work in this new economy) so I thought I'd check you guys out.

I haven't owned a car in 15 years (lived in Chicago for past nine and DC before that). I do not relish the idea of owning a car and spending all that money on a quickly depreciating asset that eats up further money in fuel, repairs and insurance. I would really miss my bus/train reading time.

My potential new employment would be in DT LA. So I was hoping to see everyone raving about the loft developments etc there. Alas...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but for a mass transit train system to really be worthwhile, a density of 5 or 6,000 per square mile is required. And LA doesn't have that anywhere right?

Also, if there was a heavy rail transit from Santa Monica to Downtown LA, what would be the length of that ride?

It always seemed to me that Los Angeles was built in such a fashion that a NYC/Chicago type transit system would be a waste of money, unless someone can find a way to make those trains run really, really fast and unless there were like 1000 miles of track.

[DJasmin]

www.metro.net

That's the link to LA's MTA website which has rail maps, schedules, etc. The criticism people have for LA isn't that it doesnt have mass transit but that the system is lacking enough train lines to reach most areas of the city/county. Downtown has the best transit options in the city, and its density is somewhere around 30,000/sq mile. LA actually does have the density to support transit, and it's rapidly developing the system. It's just that at this point the system feels sparse or incomplete.

[edluva]

^^i don't know the magic number, but the population density of LA's core easily matches that of Chicago's core. It normally hovers around 10,000 - 20,000 ppsm, but averages 50,000 ppsm in many stretches (peaks at 100,000).

The distance from downtown LA to Santa Monica is shorter than the CTA's red line. But don't hold your breath for that one. If LA had a network anywhere near extensive and compact as the el, we wouldn't be talking here - you'd be looking at a very different city. LA's core is actually not that large, despite what all the cliches about it's sprawl would have you believe.

[LosAngelesBeauty]

Originally Posted by edluva

LA's core is actually not that large, despite what all the cliches about it's sprawl would have you believe.

It's about 45 square miles right? About twice the size of Manhattan...

[edluva]

sounds about right...

and going back to the issue about prematurely dismissing rail based on the status quo, another reason to believe that improving our rail network by localizing it is the idea that additional miles of rail provide logarithmic rather than linear increases in ridership since, if it can be measured, they provide logarithmic improvements in convenience. the best example is the proposed downtown connector where the addition of some 1.7 miles of rail is projected to increase ridership disproportionate to the passengers/mile ridership of the entire network. with each new local mile of service, expanding the palate of local destinations provides more convenience, prompting more drivers to consider ditching their cars.

this is where deadzones fit in: instead of having developers continue to cater to pockets of the city that are accessible to large thoroughfares or freeway interchanges, they will start coalescing onto major subway/LRT transfer points. And that's not where it ends either. Because the capacity of rail transit is virtually limitless, developers will not be inhibited by nimby elements attempting to impose density restrictions - they will lose their ability to use traffic and parking as a bargaining chip. so land usage intensity will shoot through the roof. FARs will increase and developments will become several-fold denser than they are in the current car-based model, meaning you'll see more people everywhere. in its current state, an unusually large share of HRT users are extremely poor, because simply put, HRT service only hits unusually poor nabes. expanding rail transit to the middle/high wage earner will bring a healthier mix of patrons into the picture.

and to top it all off - the inner city will be able to outcompete suburbs for business/tax revenue like never before because of this relatively limitless capacity for commercial development.

it all starts with mobility. if you can't funnel people into a city, you won't have hope for anything else. it's very simple. citywatch, you want to make deadzones disappear, and improve the appearance of the inner city - got any alternatives? i'm still waiting...

[JDRCRASH]

I don't think he's gonna respond, Ed.

[Just-In-Cali]

Lets draw this to a close. Arguing with city over opinions is pointless. Many of us feel transportation is essential, he thinks deadzones should be top priority. What happens in the future either way is mostly out of our hands. So we can continue and 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 about sitting in traffic, and he can sit on the curb in front of a row of old empty buildings on Flower and weep and cry out for a Walgreens or something.
Two things I do want to see built downtown that are good starting points for filling in and adding to the neighborhood is Fig Central and The Grand. Those two projects along with LA LIve could bookend the area and create a catalyst for more advancement of the subways, cabs, and DASH system downtown as well as create more interesting destinations for people from outlying areas to go downtown, and then get them around DT to see more of the hidden treats, hence creating more demand for long distance transit systems.
We cant hope to build a Chicago or NY style system here, LA is an entirely different beast.
Thats why, like many have said...it will take a while to build an extensive system, but it can be done. This city has so many "nodes" of centralized business, living and retail that it will be more of a "Destination" driven system than a block by block one. Centers in Cent-City/Hollywood/Universal/DownTown/Santa Mon/the Ventura Blvd corridor/Burbank/Harbor and other areas would all be prime locations with spokes fanning out to the other central locations, with stops along the way to each. And yeah...we are looking at like a 30 year period here.
Thats my lil dog and pony show of an idea.

[JDRCRASH]

In a sense, Los Angeles actually needs a rail network larger than that of New York, because as Just-in-Cali mentioned, there are several major business centers and corridors that not only need subways to go through them, but connect them with lines that could go into residential communites. And that will require quite a bit of wormies, ultimately costing millions of G's.

[RuFFy]

I disagree here. I disagree that we won't see this in our lifetimes. As Edluva has stated, "additional miles of rail provide logarithmic rather than linear increases in ridership". Add in the convenience of the DT connector and the High Speed Rail, how different will our rail system be? Extend the Purple Line to Century City and what happens, and then beyond? I figure the more our PT system starts to show it works the more people will take it. The more they take it, the more willing they'll be to direct their tax dollars at it. It's my belief that this change is gaining momentum and will suddenly just start rolling. Take the last 18 years as an example. When we opened the Blue Line (1990) that was a joke. 1 line. How sad. We were then what Phoenix was just 2 weeks ago. A city with 1 line. Now, while the system is still kinda crappy, the pieces are starting to come together. Who in here was pro public transportation in LA prior to 1990? Probably none of you. At that time it was a pipe dream and here where are we today. Not quite there, but it's showing signs of life and possibility. It's gaining interest. Where will we be in 2020 when HSR pulls into Union Station?

Further, in 1990, we got the blue line; 1994 the first leg of the Purple/Red; 1996, the second leg of what is now the purple line; 1999, Red Line to Hollywood and 2000 to NoHo. 1995 saw the Green Line, 2003 saw the Gold. It seemed then that we were getting a "leg" of a line every 3rd year. Today, we have Expo u/c. Another leg of the Gold Line about to open and the study to expand it past that on both ends. We have the Crenshaw Corridor up on the board and the extension of the Purple line down Wilshire, among other things. I believe this momentum is increasing and the MTA will start to hammer projects out at a faster rate than it had in the past. A viable system, to me, is a lot closer than what most in here think. Maybe I'm wrong and it's just a "feeling". IDK. Just an opinion.

[citywatch]

^ Compared with the days when there was absolutely NO modern transit in LA, assuming you consider creaky old buses to be anything but modern, then you can say the city has evolved to the next level.

If so, has DT gotten much better cuz of the creation of the red line, blue line, gold line, &, by even indirect effect, the green line and the (souped up version of a bus line) orange line?

Again, no other part of LA is currently as well served by both transit &, for that matter, fwys, as DT is. of course, not great by the standards of those cities that have had subways for 70, 90 or more yrs, but better than it used to be.

Has that one thing made a big difference to a hood like DT?

If so, then is it correct to claim that the devlpt of new housing in DT hasn't been as crucial as---if not more crucial than----transit has been to the hood's turnaround?

The sales rep of the one of the new condo bldgs in DT says that most buyers are moving to DT to cut down on commute times or, if they're like me & hate congested fwys, to avoid the headache of bumper to bumper traffic.

So let's say that LA's mass transit could be magically transformed right now, & 3000 miles----or better yet, 4000 miles-----of subways suddenly appeared all around the city, esp around DT. And magically the roads around DT no longer were as crowded at they are today, &---most importantly----it no longer was as difficult to reach DT.

Would that end us causing more ppl who are currently moving to DT, or thinking of moving there, to start considering other hoods to call home?

And if old bldgs in the hood couldn't be converted to lofts, & totally new bldgs couldn't be put up for condo buyers or renters cuz there wasn't enough demand---or ppl weren't willing to pay as much to live in DT----would the slack be made up by the construction of new bldgs for businesses or hotel guests?

I'll repeat: hoods around Bev Hills, century city & UCLA aren't nearly as well served by transit, & there is more congestion around there than there is in DT. Yet I keep hearing about how businesses still would rather be based in that part of town, & NOT in DT. And the devlprs of the new LA live hotel had to be given tax breaks before they began construction.

So if LA suddenly had a lot of mass transit, & alot more ppl no longer were dependent on fwys, or if fwys no longer were as congested as they are today, would that result in the law of unintended consequences to DTLA?

To stay as close to reality as possible, cuz this forum, after all, is supposed to be devoted to actual, real new devlpt in the hood-----or things that are 100% verifiable----the question then is what would be the most realistic & also therefore most reasonable way of improving the hood, if not LA in general?

I want to say it would be great if more ppl in LA started focusing on the same problems, & favoring the same solutions.

But then I realize that even though most ppl who post to this forum probably share the same interests, & are more similar than not----compared with ppl who hate cities & prefer living in the burbs or the forests of Oregon----they still have surprisingly different POVs about what's wrong with LA, & the best way to solve the city's problems.

So look at the 2 different POVs I've seen here about what's wrong with a street like broadway, or, more importantly, what would be the best way to fix it up. Some are spooked by the idea of gentrification, while others think broadway will remain a big hole unless & til it is gentrified.

Or the different POVs about new housing vs old housing. I've seen some ppl trash the faux Euro apt bldgs put up in the northern & western parts of DT, while I've seen some ppl who at least have moved to DT complain that they wouldn't want to live in old bldgs around the OBD cuz of the problem with homeless ppl & the bad smells left behind.

I've read ppl saying they like living in DT cuz it's still got alot of grit, while I've read others say their patience is tested daily cuz of all the grit, & they probably will end up moving to another part of town.

And, of course, look at the ppl----who may or may not live in DT----who believe that improving mass transit in LA will be the magic bullet that transforms DT, while others (like me) believe that the hood's biggest problem is that it's still got too many dives, deadzones & the image that goes with all of that.

So if I say the one thing that will be the best way to improve & turnaround DT is for ppl to get on the same page, even that may not be realistic.

[citywatch]

^ I forgot to add one thing: NIMBYism.

Even among the ppl who've chosen to live in a hood like DT, I've heard some of them----believe it or not----have a NIMBY tude about new devlpt, cuz they think a new bldg will block their views, or sunlight, or remove their parking spaces.

IOW, if even ppl who wanna live in DT, or don't mind an environment like that, still will have NIMBY POVs about new devlpt, then my saying the one thing that will help improve the hood---if not LA in general----the most is for ppl to start thinking the same way, then even that may be no more realistic than claiming that improving transit will be the magic pill that makes DT a great hood.

Beyond that, it would help if ppl who own or manage dive properties in the hood, & throughout LA in general----or who live around dives----would start showing some shame in how they deal with their part of the city. IOW, half the battle in fixing up LA is for more ppl to say "this hood looks like hell! why haven't we improved it, or what can be done to improve it??"

But, then again, look at the example of a street like broadway.

Some ppl believe that anything more than very limited & small changes to that part of DT will result in gentrification----which is a negative to them----while others think that anything less than a totally transformed street means broadway will continue to be off their list.

[dktshb]

Originally Posted by rabidrabid

I'm new to this thread. I live in Chicago, but there's a good chance that I'll be moving to LA (work in this new economy) so I thought I'd check you guys out.

I haven't owned a car in 15 years (lived in Chicago for past nine and DC before that). I do not relish the idea of owning a car and spending all that money on a quickly depreciating asset that eats up further money in fuel, repairs and insurance. I would really miss my bus/train reading time.

My potential new employment would be in DT LA. So I was hoping to see everyone raving about the loft developments etc there. Alas...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but for a mass transit train system to really be worthwhile, a density of 5 or 6,000 per square mile is required. And LA doesn't have that anywhere right?

Also, if there was a heavy rail transit from Santa Monica to Downtown LA, what would be the length of that ride?

It always seemed to me that Los Angeles was built in such a fashion that a NYC/Chicago type transit system would be a waste of money, unless someone can find a way to make those trains run really, really fast and unless there were like 1000 miles of track.

Man you're way off on your density assumptions but I suppose that has been addressed already... If you're going to work downtown you have many options to live downtown or even in Hollywood and catch the red line to work every day. I'd personally recommend Hollywood over downtown where you have endless entertainment options, and great nightlife at your doorstep. Obviously you're limited as far as where you can go on the subway and light rail lines but Hollywood and Downtown are connected quite nicely.

[JDRCRASH]

January 20, 2009


From flickr, by Eric Richardson



From flickr, by Eric Richardson



From flickr, by Eric Richardson



From flickr, by Eric Richardson


From flickr, by Eric Richardson

[Just-In-Cali]

Nice JD...I was down there that day. It was pretty cool. Lots of news people milling about. One other cool thing that was in the middle of Obama's speech, my friend pointed up to the crane looming over the Marriot...and we caught it hauling the "IOT" from 'MARRIOT" name up to the parapet. Many others stopped watching the speech to watch that as well, since it was happening nearly over our heads.

[edluva]

citywatch, you haven't commented on the idea i've put up suggesting that you're dismissing rail based on the status quo. that rail in LA can't be judged yet because it hasn't become relevant enough to spur change on a major level yet.

You also haven't addressed the fact that perhaps developments that have occured in DTLA are due to what little mobility is offered by rail serving it. You act as though those developments occurred without the consideration of mass transit, in a vacuum.

And lastly, you still haven't offered a single alternative to mass transit as a foundational basis from which increased density.development might occur. What's your solution? You obviously convinced yourself that mass transit won't work (though you still cannot defend that assertion), but you fail to come up with a solution. Let's hear it. Everything you've said has been a rehash of obvious facts. And you're still dodging the question...

[BigDan35]

God, you people are like little school-children. "You aren't answering my question"..."you're dodging mine"..."why are you trying to get away without answering me"....blah blah blah. Like a bunch of highschool kids.

[JDRCRASH]

Originally Posted by Just-In-Cali

Nice JD...I was down there that day. It was pretty cool. Lots of news people milling about. One other cool thing that was in the middle of Obama's speech, my friend pointed up to the crane looming over the Marriot...and we caught it hauling the "IOT" from 'MARRIOT" name up to the parapet. Many others stopped watching the speech to watch that as well, since it was happening nearly over our heads.

Oh, so the sign's finished, then? Thats cool. It seems like it took a while for them to do that. And it's fitting that people watch from DTLA the inauguration of a man who seems to appreciate the value of revitalizing inner cities.

[Just-In-Cali]

Originally Posted by BigDan35

God, you people are like little school-children. "You aren't answering my question"..."you're dodging mine"..."why are you trying to get away without answering me"....blah blah blah. Like a bunch of highschool kids.

Just when I thought we could last a whole week without SOMEONE bitching and moaning and insulting people with absolutly no reference to the topic...here comes BigDan.
For someone who has absolutly NOTHING to add to the topic...you certainly say alot.

[edluva]

Originally Posted by BigDan35

God, you people are like little school-children. "You aren't answering my question"..."you're dodging mine"..."why are you trying to get away without answering me"....blah blah blah. Like a bunch of highschool kids.

well, bigdan, if you actually cared about the topic at hand, maybe you'd also care to know citywatch's reasoning.

[colemonkee]

Guys, take the transit argument to a transit thread. This thread is for discussions about downtown projects. Speaking of which...

Medallion

From earlier this morning...






LAPD HQ

There's a pretty comprehensive photo update in the LAPD HQ Thread in General Development. Here's a sample from earlier today...





The Motor Pool building on Main



And one from last Sunday when we had that gorgeous sunset.



(All pictures taken by me)