LOS ANGELES | Downtown Project Rundown 3.0

[DistrictDirt]

Originally Posted by SD_Phil

100% right LAofAnaheim! But this is really a kind of Catch22 that's plagued LA for at least 30 years (if not more so). People rely, predominantly, on cars to get around in LA. People will not tend to buy/visit places where they cannot park easily. Therefore most places, to be viable, would build large parking garages anyway (even without the ordinances I think). So that slows construction because it increases cost which makes it almost impossible to have an economically viable middle income highrise just about anywhere in LA. I really don't think this situation will change for at least another 15-20 years while we improve transit availability and citizens come to see that there are safe, efficient alternatives to cars for getting around the city (and not just the touristy parts). If the 30/10 plan goes through this could happen much much faster.

Except we're talking about Downtown here. Downtown is the one neighborhood in Los Angeles where the transit is very good. So while I can understand the need for parking garages around activity centers in the Westside, I don't think they're needed Downtown. Downtown's competitive advantage over other neighborhoods (besides good transit) is its walkability. There's solid walls of shops and restaurants, or at least vacant storefronts that have the potential to be shops and restaurants. Vacant lots also represent potential retail...unless garages are built on them, that is. Every garage that is built Downtown works against Downtown's potential.

Summary: Downtown garages are not only unnecessary, but harmful to Downtown's future.

[LAofAnaheim]

Hollywood, Santa Monica and downtown LA have 1) more expensive parking than the rest of LA county and 2) no free parking available than the rest of LA county........but yet are the most visited places in LA. People don't go to destinations just because there is plenty of parking. If that was the case, then Santa Clarita would be your # 1 locals destination. No. They go for the entertainment or retail options in the area. Car parking doesn't become a necessity when people really want to visit the Chinese Theater, Staples Center, 3rd Street Promenade. It won't hinder them if "no parking" is available, people will still find a way there. Thus, the reason why a 300+ space garage is not needed, when the same could be fulfilled by 100 spaces. People will still find a will/way to get there. In the end, more would CONSIDER taking Metro. But when there is cheap and available parking...less people utilize our system and then we wonder why people don't ride.

[SD_Phil]

Originally Posted by LAofAnaheim

Hollywood, Santa Monica and downtown LA have 1) more expensive parking than the rest of LA county and 2) no free parking available than the rest of LA county........but yet are the most visited places in LA. People don't go to destinations just because there is plenty of parking. If that was the case, then Santa Clarita would be your # 1 locals destination. No. They go for the entertainment or retail options in the area. Car parking doesn't become a necessity when people really want to visit the Chinese Theater, Staples Center, 3rd Street Promenade. It won't hinder them if "no parking" is available, people will still find a way there. Thus, the reason why a 300+ space garage is not needed, when the same could be fulfilled by 100 spaces. People will still find a will/way to get there. In the end, more would CONSIDER taking Metro. But when there is cheap and available parking...less people utilize our system and then we wonder why people don't ride.

I don't disagree in principle but this is why I said it's a catch 22. It's hard to get the kind of critical mass necessary for DT to be purely a destination by itself. There needs to be a lot more people living there than there are right now. If people are going to get to DT from somewhere else then they need a place to park. I wish it weren't the case and hopefully in the future (again as things like the DT connector are built and therefore make it easier to get from one place to another car free) then that would be less of an issue. That being said I don't fault the slowness of current development given the realities of DT as it is now. The next 15 years look like they have many good things for DT but projects going up now need to be viable now.

I'm a little confused by your examples (3rd Street, Chinese Theater) because those all abut or contain HUGE parking garages or have several pay lots spread out nearby. I'd rather have underground parking than separate parking garages and would take either of those over surface pay lots.

[edluva]

Originally Posted by LosAngelesBeauty

Yeah it's time to send emails/facebook wall posts to Jan Perry/Jose Huizar that giving someone a ticket for jaywalking is so lame and the public sees right thru the city's need for more money that it's not even funny.

how bout la is just lame for the fact that these things even happen here

[Kingofthehill]

Originally Posted by DistrictDirt

Except we're talking about Downtown here. Downtown is the one neighborhood in Los Angeles where the transit is very good.

Koreatown, Westlake, and Hollywood/East Hollywood also have good transit. That's pretty much it, though.

[pesto]

I think it's clear that first you make an area desirable. Without that, parking is no issue.

But then I don't see the Catch 22. How is a city hurt by having good transit and, say, 3-7 level parking structures with retail at ground level scattered among offices and residential buildings? SF, SD, SJ have these in their DT areas. So do Pasadena, SM, Glendale. And these haven't kept people from coming there or developers from building solid street-walls of buildings.

Apparently, Broad, Huizar, Parry, every DT landowner and virtually every DT business agree (even DT residents were monopolizing monthly parking at Pershing Sq. so the law had to be changed to make room for commuters).

Does someone think Broad has an ulterior motive for wanting more parking? At his age and with his money and history of philanthropy, how could he want anything other than a successful art gallery?

[202_Cyclist]

But then I don't see the Catch 22. How is a city hurt by having good transit and, say, 3-7 level parking structures with retail at ground level scattered among offices and residential buildings? SF, SD, SJ have these in their DT areas. So do Pasadena, SM, Glendale. And these haven't kept people from coming there or developers from building solid street-walls of buildings.

These parking garages make driving easier as parking is more abundant, undermining transit ridership. Parking garages, even with ground-floor retail, create dead-zones in what is an otherwise urban environment. There might be a handful of people who work in these ground-floor retail stores but they otherwise lack people to patronize nearby businesses or otherwise make the area lively.

The land committed to parking garages also comes at the expense of land that can be put to other uses, such as office or residential development. LA is making a several billion dollar investment in its rail transit and as much office or residential development should be located near the stations or otherwise walkable areas as possible instead of going out of their way to accommodate automobiles.

[DistrictDirt]

Originally Posted by 202_Cyclist

These parking garages make driving easier as parking is more abundant, undermining transit ridership. Parking garages, even with ground-floor retail, create dead-zones in what is an otherwise urban environment. There might be a handful of people who work in these ground-floor retail stores but they otherwise lack people to patronize nearby businesses or otherwise make the area lively.

The land committed to parking garages also comes at the expense of land that can be put to other uses, such as office or residential development. LA is making a several billion dollar investment in its rail transit and as much office or residential development should be located near the stations or otherwise walkable areas as possible instead of going out of their way to accommodate automobiles.

Spot on.

A couple of garages are okay, but Downtown has a plethora of garages and lots as it is- as much as we'll ever need, I reckon. Lots are no big deal; they can be developed. But at ~$50k a spot, no one is going to demolish garages once their built- not for generations at least.

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

Ive been living downtown for a few months now and after some analyzing, i think 8th street can be the next great street in downtown.

Here are a few reasons why i think it has potential. 1) The street is a bit narrower than most in downtown, allowing for a more intimate feel. 2) There are some hidden gems (Garfield building and the Commercial exchange) that are just ripe for adaptive reuse and 3) it bridges a gap between so many districts. Financial, Historic, Jewelry, South Park, Flower.

If the Opus project was developed, it would greatly spur this along. I think that the Bristol, Dtown Burger and Golden Gopher block is headed in the right direction. There are a few underused lots however, that would need to go. the Colori kitchen is great, but that corner needs to be redeveloped. also, diagonally across from it at 8th and hill, there is a run down 1 story building that needs to be replaced.

Just my two cents.

[DistrictDirt]

Originally Posted by LosAngelesSportsFan

Ive been living downtown for a few months now and after some analyzing, i think 8th street can be the next great street in downtown.

Here are a few reasons why i think it has potential. 1) The street is a bit narrower than most in downtown, allowing for a more intimate feel. 2) There are some hidden gems (Garfield building and the Commercial exchange) that are just ripe for adaptive reuse and 3) it bridges a gap between so many districts. Financial, Historic, Jewelry, South Park, Flower.

If the Opus project was developed, it would greatly spur this along. I think that the Bristol, Dtown Burger and Golden Gopher block is headed in the right direction. There are a few underused lots however, that would need to go. the Colori kitchen is great, but that corner needs to be redeveloped. also, diagonally across from it at 8th and hill, there is a run down 1 story building that needs to be replaced.

Just my two cents.

I see what you mean...it does have a nice cozy feel to it. I'm moving downtown next month...I'll have to explore the street firsthand when I do.



Looking at this image, it just reminds me how the one-ways are detracting from downtown's streets. 3 lanes in one direction makes this street feel like a mini freeway, despite its narrowness. With bi-directional traffic, drivers slow down a bit and use more caution...exactly what they should be doing when driving through a major activity center.

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

i agree. i think all the streets should be two way. there was some discussion a while ago to do this if i remember correctly.

[Illithid Dude]

I think it is odd that some streets aren't two way. It seems extremely counter-intuitive to make a three-lane one way street. What would be nice is if they converted all the one-way streets downtown into two-lane streets with grade separated bike paths.

[citywatch]

Originally Posted by DistrictDirt

Summary: Downtown garages are not only unnecessary, but harmful to Downtown's future.

What??! parking garages are the least of all the problems in the hood. otoh, surface lots do deaden dt.

the only thing that's really harmful to its future are all the many ppl who still prefer the burbs or the protected little hamlets of LA to dt. the ppl who I've heard over & over again say that dt is a lonely, dirty, dangerous or boring part of town that ppl should avoid or spend little time in.

As for the belief that the average john doe or jane doe can lead a life in LA without ever owning or using a car? most ppl would consider that a pipe dream. Others may like to believe that reality will exist in the near future. But when I see the very congested streets of NYC or Tokyo, or all the other major cities of the world, I have to ask those ppl who think towns can survive & thrive without the presence of the auto: "what planet do you live on?!"

getting back to the matter of parking garages, when almost every store & restaurant in dt---from big to small---is always packed with customers, then & only then might liberties be taken with the subj of whether garages are important or not, or good or bad.

[Illithid Dude]

I have to say, after browsing all of the other cities threads, L.A. is so aggravating! What makes the other cities able to sustain development when the only thing DTLA has going on right now is an extraordinarily ugly YWCA building? Ugh. This is horrible. Why can't anything break ground right now? Most of the 20 story buildings are around 20 mil. That is about as much as many peoples homes! How is it possible that something so small (cost wise) can't get off the ground? Not to mention the smaller things, like the FIDM building. Even the things that have a budget already (Broad Collection) can't seem to break ground. Is L.A. cursed? It sure feels like it.

[DistrictDirt]

Originally Posted by citywatch

getting back to the matter of parking garages, when almost every store & restaurant in dt---from big to small---is always packed with customers, then & only then might liberties be taken with the subj of whether garages are important or not, or good or bad.

...so we should just keep building them indiscriminately until downtown meets this arbitrary condition?

[LAofAnaheim]

This is the parking policy we need to spread further from the Old Bank District renovation buildings. "No new parking spaces required". Let the developer decide if they want to build parking, let's not mandate developers to build parking. If the building is unsuccessful, oh well, lesson learned by the developer that parking is required. If a success, we can see more buildings come with limited parking. By the way, notice how the Old Bank District is the most urban and dynamic neighborhood...maybe the "no new parking" policy is a success..unlike South Park which have new buildings with minimum parking requirements (i.e. Market Lofts, 717 Olympic, Watermarke, Concerto, The Met, Met Lofts, etc...). Which buildings look more asthetically appealing and more urban?

Read the adapative reuse parking requirement: http://lahd.lacity.org/lahdinternet/Portals/0/Policy/ARObook.pdf

[DistrictDirt]

Originally Posted by LAofAnaheim

By the way, notice how the Old Bank District is the most urban and dynamic neighborhood...maybe the "no new parking" policy is a success..unlike South Park which have new buildings with minimum parking requirements (i.e. Market Lofts, 717 Olympic, Watermarke, Concerto, The Met, Met Lofts, etc...). Which buildings look more asthetically appealing and more urban?

Read the adapative reuse parking requirement: http://lahd.lacity.org/lahdinternet/Portals/0/Policy/ARObook.pdf

Take it a step further. Ever notice that the most urban and dynamic cities...take New York for example- are notoriously difficult to find parking in? It certainly doesn't stop people from visiting. When I'm back east and I feel like going up to NY for the day, I wouldn't dream of dealing with the aggravation of parking there. I either take NJ Transit up, or I park in Hoboken and take the PATH under the Hudson. What I don't do is give up and say "well hell...parking is going to be an issue, so I guess I just won't go." LA must must must get off of this flawed idea that a destination must have an overabundance of parking to attract visitors. Its simply false.

Instead, we should focus on making Downtown such an overwhelmingly attractive and interesting neighborhood to visit that people who don't feel like hunting down one of the many existing parking spaces will instead opt to use one of the many public transportation options to get there.

What kind of Downtown do we want? The one where all the money has been poured into retail, civic amenities, streetscaping, and new condos? Or the one where we pour the money into parking in an effort to cater to automobiles and turn Downtown into a burb?

[Dylan Leblanc]

There are 54 highrise buildings proposed for LA in the database. Many of these are out of date. They are proposals from the past several years which are effectively cancelled by now.

Can anyone say which ones of these are definitely not going to happen? I'll set them in the database as cancelled. Any of them which are still alive can stay.

Each building page here has a map with the location of the project.

- 10000 Santa Monica
- 1027 Wilshire
- 1247 West 7th Street
- 3670 Wilshire
- 8th & Grand South Tower
- 8th & Hope
- Barrington & Wilshire
- Century Plaza Tower 1
- Century Plaza Tower 2
- Circa on Wilshire
- Columbia Square Office
- Columbia Square Residential
- Concerto - North Tower
- Desmond's Tower Condominiums
- East Tower Condominiums
- FDIM Apartments
- Glass Tower Condominums
- Grand Avenue - Iconic Tower
- Grand Avenue Project Tower Four
- Grand Avenue Project Tower Three
- Grand Avenue Project Tower Two
- Hearst - Tower One
- Hearst - Tower Two
- Jardin Tower I
- Jardin Tower II
- LA Central I
- LA Central II
- LA Lofts
- Libeskind Tower
- Little Tokyo Condominiums
- Lucia Tower
- Metropolis Phase Four
- Metropolis Phase One
- Metropolis Phase Three
- Metropolis Phase Two
- Mill Street Lofts
- Olive Street Lofts
- Pacific Exchange Tower One
- Pacific Exchange Tower Two
- Park Fifth - Tower 2
- Park Tower
- Shy Barry Tower II
- Southpark Towers
- The Westholme
- Trinity Towers
- Vibiana Lofts
- Wilshire & Catalina
- Wilshire & La Brea Tower
- Wilshire - Crescent Heights
- Wilshire Gayley
- Wilshire Grand Redevelopment Hotel
- Wilshire Grand Tower A
- Wilshire Hoover
- Wilshire Skyline

Thanks guys!

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by edluva

how bout la is just lame for the fact that these things even happen here

Jaywalking laws are California-wide, not just limited to LA.

[Kingofthehill]

The harder a city is to park in, the easier it is to live in.