LOS ANGELES | Downtown Project Rundown 3.0

[202_Cyclist]

District Dirt

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.

Kingofthehill

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

I sent this to our councilmember last year when DC raised its parking meter rates in some of high-actitivity neighborhoods but this is relevant to this discussion as well.

It is density and accessibility that makes an area vibrant and economically strong. Nationally, which has a more vibrant downtown economy: Manhattan (with its very limited parking) or Houston (with its wide streets and more readily available parking)? Locally (the DC region), the most vibrant areas (Rosslyn-Ballston corridor, old town Alexandria, U Street, Georgetown , Chinatown/Verizon Center) are successful in part because of the very limited parking in these areas.

[DistrictDirt]

Originally Posted by Kingofthehill

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

I'm going to have to borrow that one from you.

[BrandonJXN]

So the 2018/2022 World Cup Bids are now. The Coliseum is one of the proposed venues for the 2022 World Cup. We'll know who wins both 2018 and 2022 in like 10 minutes.

espn3.com if you want to see the results.

[BrandonJXN]

^ 2018 WC will be in Russia.
2022 WC will be in Qatar.

[DistrictDirt]

Originally Posted by 202_Cyclist

...the most vibrant areas (Rosslyn-Ballston corridor, old town Alexandria, U Street, Georgetown , Chinatown/Verizon Center) are successful in part because of the very limited parking in these areas.

The problem is that this is counter-intuitive, and people with no background in transportation planning (most everyone) have trouble believing it at first. Its like trying to explain to people that adding lanes actually increases traffic in the long term. Until they understand the reasoning and see the evidence, it sounds outlandish.

I guess at the end of the day, it doesn't matter if the general public gets these principles; it just matters if the decisionmakers do. And in regards to the parking issue, it looks like LADOT actually does get it, and is starting to implement Donald Shoup's performance parking principles. Now, as LAofAnaheim pointed out, parking requirements just need to catch up. We shouldn't force developers to build a certain amount of parking; we should let the market decide. Development would likely get a boost, as developers would be free of the enormous cost of overbuilding structured parking.

[DistrictDirt]

Originally Posted by ThreeHundred

^ 2018 WC will be in Russia.
2022 WC will be in Qatar.

Bummer.

[SD_Phil]

Originally Posted by DistrictDirt

The problem is that this is counter-intuitive, and people with no background in transportation planning (most everyone) have trouble believing it at first. Its like trying to explain to people that adding lanes actually increases traffic in the long term. Until they understand the reasoning and see the evidence, it sounds outlandish.

I guess at the end of the day, it doesn't matter if the general public gets these principles; it just matters if the decisionmakers do. And in regards to the parking issue, it looks like LADOT actually does get it, and is starting to implement Donald Shoup's performance parking principles. Now, as LAofAnaheim pointed out, parking requirements just need to catch up. We shouldn't force developers to build a certain amount of parking; we should let the market decide. Development would likely get a boost, as developers would be free of the enormous cost of overbuilding structured parking.

I don't buy that the situation between DC and LA is comparable as easily as this makes it appear. DC not only already had a certain degree of densely built housing stock but also already has a fairly extensive metro system that makes the demand for parking requirements far less pressing.

Add in the historical contingencies that the built environment in Los Angeles embodies (less extensive non-bus transit, a very spread out populace, a highly interconnected freeway network, and a wide but unevenly distributed set of resources) and the analogy between DC and LA falls apart to nearly nothing.

I'm not saying we should absolutely require developers to build 2 parking spaces for every unit in a residential development but I also think we shouldn't be content to just let developers put up buildings without any (or with very few) parking options. You and others seemed content to let projects like that fail and sit empty. I think we have enough empty buildings DT as it is and would rather have a parking garage than a parking lot. If it removes dead zones and brings more people to DT then it will help build up a DC like critical mass. Then we can debate the luxury of getting rid of parking garages.

[Illithid Dude]

Originally Posted by 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!

Only a few of those are 'dead', per se. History has shown that just because something simply isn't built when it was supposed to does not mean that it will never be built. Park Fifth will never, ever happen. Libeskind and Wilshire Grand are still on track, and probably will happen. All the others are just waiting for a better economy. 1000 Santa Monica is also completely dead. Jardin is dead, also. I sent the developers an email asking about the project, and they said it was not expected to go forward.

[DistrictDirt]

Originally Posted by SD_Phil

I'm not saying we should absolutely require developers to build 2 parking spaces for every unit in a residential development but I also think we shouldn't be content to just let developers put up buildings without any (or with very few) parking options. You and others seemed content to let projects like that fail and sit empty.

You misinterpret me. I'm not talking about outlawing parking in new buildings. That would be insane. I'm talking about removing parking minimums.

A developer is motivated by turning a profit. So you be sure that they will do their homework, and determine the exact number of spaces necessary to maximize their profit. Build too much parking and they cut into their profits (Each space can cost up to $30,000 to construct!) Build too little parking and, as you pointed out, their buildings may sit empty, cutting into their profit. There is an optimum number of spaces per unit in an given location at a given price point, and you can be damn sure developer will be precise about determing that number, since its his own money at stake. Whether that number is 1.5 spaces/unit, 1 space/unit, or less, I don't really care. I'm just saying lets allow developers to determine that number, rather than force a one-size-fits-all number that's inappropriate for an urban context.

TL;DR: By mandating parking minimums, we're interfering with the market, creating excess parking, and actually discouraging development by making it more expensive than necessary for developers to build.

[LosAngelesBeauty]

I think one thing to also point out here when it comes to the limitations of PARKING--as it pertains to urban and pedestrian functionality--is that MOST parking structures are also PRIVATE and serves to confine patronage to that respective private entity who owns/operates said parking structure.

Meaning, if you park at X business' parking lot, you are technically not allowed to leave the premises without risk of having your car towed. This rule applies to thousands and thousands of parking lots throughout the metro area and has trained the minds of millions to think they are to shop and dine without WALKING to other businesses around wherever they are parked. This obviously PREVENTS any kind of spontaneous pedestrian excursions since the "ball and chain" of having a car risked being towed is always on the back of someone's mind if they "break the rules."

That's why for a city as GIGANTIC as LA, you hardly see anyone walking on the streets (outside of DTLA and Hollywood) because most parking is private and has limited capacity and must be treated like gold by business owners who THREATEN their customers that "If you leave my parking lot to shop at another property, you are not welcome and we will tow your car as a penalty!"

Only "Park and Walk" structures like those in Old Pasadena, Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, etc. really allow people to park once and walk in a "designated area." Even though that model is a TAD better, it still limits the true FREEDOM of pure urbanism made possible only by forsaking the car and parking model and going toward the walking and mass transit model.

[RST500]

Originally Posted by 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!

This thread is several years old. I think it either needs to be updated or a new one started from scratch considering about half of the proposals have been canceled and there are also several new ones that need to be added.

[Sodha]

Originally Posted by 202_Cyclist

It is density and accessibility that makes an area vibrant and economically strong. Nationally, which has a more vibrant downtown economy: Manhattan (with its very limited parking) or Houston (with its wide streets and more readily available parking)? Locally (the DC region), the most vibrant areas (Rosslyn-Ballston corridor, old town Alexandria, U Street, Georgetown , Chinatown/Verizon Center) are successful in part because of the very limited parking in these areas.

Or the Old Bank District in downtown Los Angeles....

[Sodha]

Originally Posted by SD_Phil

I'm not saying we should absolutely require developers to build 2 parking spaces for every unit in a residential development but I also think we shouldn't be content to just let developers put up buildings without any (or with very few) parking options. You and others seemed content to let projects like that fail and sit empty. I think we have enough empty buildings DT as it is and would rather have a parking garage than a parking lot. If it removes dead zones and brings more people to DT then it will help build up a DC like critical mass. Then we can debate the luxury of getting rid of parking garages.

The buildings in the Old Bank District did not require any new parking to be built...and look at how vibrant that area is. It's fear mongering to say "projects like that fail or sit empty". Name one project, in or outside LA, that has been unsuccessful because no parking is available. If people want to drive...they'll find a nearby lot and pay the price.

You are scared of the unknown. Oh no, "no parking" means I cannot park. No, that's not what we're saying. Rent a space from a nearby public garage. Boston has huge multistory parking lots owned by the city and then they require no new parking by developers. Residents can rent a space. Walk a block and pay for your "right to park". That's the policy we need in certain areas of LA (not everywhere). We're not talking armaggedon here. It's not like San Francisco, New York, Chicago have absolutely no parking. Just cut down a few spaces...make it cheaper for developers, and in turn, cheaper for us to buy/rent. Do you know why market rate housing in downtown LA is expensive? You've answered your own question.

[SD_Phil]

Quite a few things to respond to here:

Originally Posted by Sodha

It's fear mongering to say "projects like that fail or sit empty".

Originally Posted by LAofAnaheim

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 it's fearmongering then it wasn't my own. I was merely responding to it, as you were. My response was that that attitude wasn't particularly helpful to the debate and probably bad for DT development. Like I said in my previous post, I'd rather wait and have a development that is fully financed and is most apt to be financially viable. This means, right now, that parking should be included.

Originally Posted by Sodha

You are scared of the unknown.

No. I'm not.

Originally Posted by Sodha

Oh no, "no parking" means I cannot park. No, that's not what we're saying.

It's also not something I saddled you with.

Originally Posted by Sodha

Rent a space from a nearby public garage. Boston has huge multistory parking lots owned by the city and then they require no new parking by developers. Residents can rent a space. Walk a block and pay for your "right to park". That's the policy we need in certain areas of LA (not everywhere).

Sounds like a great idea. But those garages need to be in place first before we can demand (or should expect) developments to ease up on parking spaces on their own property lest they take the serious risk of become financially unsound.

But then again this doesn't seem at all different from what I was advocating. I was saying that as transit options, not just DT but city wide, increase that parking requirements could feesibly decrease. The problem is that those options aren't fully there and the ones that are there aren't easily connected. YET. When they become so then that will be a significant shift in how Angelenos can get around their city. Parking requirements should lessen.

Originally Posted by Sodha

We're not talking armaggedon here. It's not like San Francisco, New York, Chicago have absolutely no parking. Just cut down a few spaces...make it cheaper for developers, and in turn, cheaper for us to buy/rent. Do you know why market rate housing in downtown LA is expensive? You've answered your own question.

I'm not talking armaggedon either. Where did I? It is, however, disingenous to plan DT as if it already contained the transit resources of SF or Chi or NYC. It doesn't. Not yet. As it gets closer to these cities in terms of transit connectivity then yes, of course our planning should reflect that.

The very fact that we have had such an increase in TOD since Villaraigosa became mayor is indicative of the fact that the city is changing. This is great news! It's what urbanists like me (and you!) have always wanted. But we need to plan the best way to reach our goals and developing now as if we already have reached those goals is a bad idea.

[pesto]

Lots of interesting points. Some comments.

One possible reason not to allow builders to build without parking is the availability of free externalities, which in this case means not putting in any parking spaces, sell cheaper and tell people to park on the streets. In general, you avoid abuse of externalties by zoning: requiring reasonable consistency of quality and amenities from nearby properties.

Btw, in the 1960's, street parking was quite easy in Hollywood, Westlake, Venice and LA generally, any time of day or night. Then the city liberalized the codes to allow apartments with fewer parking places. Street parking utterly disappeared over the next decade as tenants were forced to park on the streets. This is the classic abuse of externalities.

The Boston solution is fine as a 2nd best; they had to do this because the buildings went up before parking was needed.

Somehow we have the idea that SF doesn't have parking DT. In fact, SF has done a good job of building parking around DT (Union Sq., North Beach, Financial Dist., etc.) which have kept shopping in those areas alive. There is hardly a block that doesn't have public parking structures or hotels or offices that have public parking. And the new towers in SoMa have parking with the units. Again, from personal experience, bidding is frantic for additional places when they become available.

The OBD has plenty of parking (check out the half-empty lots everywhere). What is needed is to convert them into 3-7 story structures and get rid of the surface lots. If you want to turn the entrepreneurs loose, this is the place to do it. I also don't buy that the OBD is vibrant. This is a mere shadow of what it could be.

[Sodha]

SD_Phil...where do you live? I live in downtown LA and there are plenty of parking garages that sit almost empty at night. And during the day, most of the garages are only 60% utilized. To say that there isn't parking available today, would be ludicrous.

It's a case of "chicken and the egg". If we keep building huge parking garages, what's the incentive to take mass transit or even invest into the system? With larger parking garages, leads to wider streets, leading to left-turn lanes, leading to increased freeway lanes (for "traffic reduction"), leading to more parking demand, etc... The cycle continues. Downtown LA and Hollywood are ready to significantly curb parking requirements. The density and transit options are there. In other parts..not so much.

The only reason people advocate for more parking are those people who live out yonder pushing us (who live in downtown) with more lots. One of my neighbors remarked to me yesterday how the Market Lofts has been an extreme help for the neighborhood, not just for Ralphs, but to have "more eyes on the streets", "more visibility", "more nightlife". You don't get that with a parking garage. You get that with building a residential or office building.

If we can cut down the parking requirements....we would get more demand for transit (bus) lanes, leading to bike lanes (bikes can share bus lanes), smaller streets, leading to wider sidewalks, less driveway intrusion on sidewalks, etc... I think the latter stuff sounds better than increasing parking garages just because "transit isn't there yet". Your perception of "transit not being there" will not be the same for somebody else. Nobody will reach concensus on that.........

[DistrictDirt]

Originally Posted by Sodha

If we keep building huge parking garages, what's the incentive to take mass transit or even invest into the system? With larger parking garages, leads to wider streets, leading to left-turn lanes, leading to increased freeway lanes (for "traffic reduction"), leading to more parking demand, etc...

Originally Posted by Sodha

If we can cut down the parking requirements....we would get more demand for transit (bus) lanes, leading to bike lanes (bikes can share bus lanes), smaller streets, leading to wider sidewalks, less driveway intrusion on sidewalks, etc...

You've just described thinking about the issue proactively versus thinking about it reactively. We shouldn't be building more garages because the cars we have, we should be building less to encourage more demand for transit.

This kind of thing has been called 'social engineering' disdainfully in recent years, but really its just urban planning, same as it ever was. Want lots of cars? Build highways and parking lots. Want less cars? Build transportation alternatives and make it harder to park. You need the carrot and the stick.

[mdiederi]

Why are people using New York as an example of no parking and lots of street life? Manhattan has thousands of parking garages.
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s...19,-73.975925&spn=0.034004,0.067549&z=14

[LAofAnaheim]

Originally Posted by DistrictDirt

This kind of thing has been called 'social engineering' disdainfully in recent years, but really its just urban planning, same as it ever was. Want lots of cars? Build highways and parking lots. Want less cars? Build transportation alternatives and make it harder to park. You need the carrot and the stick.

Well....wasn't it social engineering in the '40s and '50s when nearly every American city and Eisenhower got states to invest heavily in highway systems and remove trolley tracks?

I think we're on the same page.

[Dylan Leblanc]

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

Only a few of those are 'dead', per se. History has shown that just because something simply isn't built when it was supposed to does not mean that it will never be built. Park Fifth will never, ever happen. Libeskind and Wilshire Grand are still on track, and probably will happen. All the others are just waiting for a better economy. 1000 Santa Monica is also completely dead. Jardin is dead, also. I sent the developers an email asking about the project, and they said it was not expected to go forward.

Thanks, I have made those changes.