LOS ANGELES | Downtown Project Rundown 3.0 - Page 484

colemonkee · #**9661** Posted **Dec 3, 2010, 3:58 PM**

1027 Wilshire, at least in the tower form, is also officially dead. The latest proposal is for a mid or low-rise.

pesto · #**9662** Posted **Dec 3, 2010, 7:12 PM**

mdiederi: thanks; I was going to make the same point about NY but focused on SF instead, which has enormous parking structures in DT, Civic Center and other dense areas but has people fighting for more.

DT LA has the opportunity to plan for expected growth by including both adequate parking and quality transit. When the locals demand it, the govt. should try to deliver.

Social engineering is different; it is the taking of a particular theory and forcing it upon the general populace without demand for it. When urban planners (and the govt. generally) respond to the demands of people (rather than bringing them the truth from the great academies) there is no social engineering going on; only attempts at civic improvement.

The Bringing Back Broadway plan strikes me as pretty much correct on this issue. They were responding to demands for improved parking from every DT stakeholder (this is per BBB and Huizar’s organization, so let him know if you feel differently): rationalize hours and terms for parking structures so as to create externalities (people know what hours the lots are open; that they are properly maintained; costs are reasonable; etc); add parking where there is demand for it (on Bway near the theater district).

But, again, this isn’t going to create demand to go DT; this is making it easier for people who want to go DT to do so. The demand has to come from other sources.

DistrictDirt · #**9663** Posted **Dec 3, 2010, 7:39 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LAofAnaheim

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.

Exactly. I want to scream this when I see the talking heads arguing that we shouldn't build transit because its "social engineering". Its all social engineering! Highways, suburbs, cities, transit. People are shaped by their environments. What else is new?

IconRPCV · #**9664** Posted **Dec 3, 2010, 8:42 PM**

Hello all; I just moved into a loft on Spring St. and I am really excited about exploring downtown. I am a development enthusiest so I am looking forward to participating in this forum.

LosAngelesBeauty · #**9665** Posted **Dec 3, 2010, 10:44 PM**

Welcome to the forum!

I hope that as the retail spaces along Spring St. are filled in, there will be enough demand to start a strong wave toward the Broadway side.

Illithid Dude · #**9666** Posted **Dec 3, 2010, 11:32 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by colemonkee

1027 Wilshire, at least in the tower form, is also officially dead. The latest proposal is for a mid or low-rise.

Such a shame. I've known about that change for a very long time, but I haven't gotten over it. Whenever I show my friends the first page of this thread, the 1027 Wilshire tower is the thing that jumps out at them the most. It was truly a beautiful building. Ah, well. When are you going to update the first page, Colemonkee? It is a little dated now.

colemonkee · #**9667** Posted **Dec 4, 2010, 1:53 AM**

^ I really liked that design too. Not to mention the density it would have created on the West side of the 110. Oh well, you win some, you lose some.

As for updating the first page, I haven't had the time, and probably won't for a few weeks. This is the busiest time of the year for me work-wise, not to mention Holiday stuff. I still haven't had a chance to go through my pictures from Spain that I took back in September.

DistrictDirt · #**9668** Posted **Dec 4, 2010, 2:04 AM**

Required reading for anyone who cares about the future of cities, DTLA included:

Janette Sadik-Khan - New York City Department of Transportation Commissioner Profile - Esquire

BrandonJXN · #**9669** Posted **Dec 4, 2010, 3:59 PM**

So last night I was in downtown and rode my bike past the Wilshire Grand hotel and noticed a planning commission report or whatever those things are called saying that there will be a meeting on the 16th to talk about the demolition of the hotel.

Just..you know...fyi and whatever else.

citywatch · #**9670** Posted **Dec 4, 2010, 4:36 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThreeHundred

there will be a meeting on the 16th to talk about the demolition of the hotel.

I'm gonna say it again: ppl who actually live or spend time in dt help keep this thread alive!

your bit of first hand info applies specifically to "DTLA", not just to cities in general.

btw, I was in the hood yesterday around little tokyo. the reason I think it's better for ppl to actually be in DT when trying to understand it is cuz one's impressions of it are different when dealing with it directly instead of from a distance.

So when I was there all the general talk about parking structures, or planning guidelines, or urban transit seems to fall by the wayside. the reason? whenever I'm in the hood, the thing that often stands out to me is a feeling there still aren't enough ppl & $$ in DT.

When I was in NYC a few yrs ago I was overwhelmed by the crowds of ppl---workers, residents, tourists, execs---& all the $$ invested in the endless number of bldgs for those ppl. By comparison, on so many occasions when I've been in dtla, I want to turn on the machine that creates the sound of crickets.

TG it's not as bad as it was a few yrs ago, or certainly over 10 yrs ago. and TG it's getting better. but, again, I'm still bothered by a lack of enough ppl & investment for them. and I don't think the specifics of parking structures, transit or whatever is what really ails the hood. It's just that too many ppl (& their $$) throughout LA have long favored being anywhere but DT.

It was so easy for ppl to walk away from the hood in the first place cuz it never was a really nice enough place, 10 yrs ago or 60 yrs ago. but in some ways it's better today than it was even back before the burbs became king. That's cuz I don't believe dt ever had much of a 24/7 population, except some ppl (mainly pensioners) living around bunker hill.

the fact that ppl with money started to abandon bunker hill as long ago as the 1920s is the key to understanding why DTLA never moved into the big leagues. it's the main reason its reputation fell apart so quickly while the center of other cities like chicago or nyc managed to hold onto theirs.

Illithid Dude · #**9671** Posted **Dec 4, 2010, 5:35 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThreeHundred

So last night I was in downtown and rode my bike past the Wilshire Grand hotel and noticed a planning commission report or whatever those things are called saying that there will be a meeting on the 16th to talk about the demolition of the hotel.

Just..you know...fyi and whatever else.

That's exciting. I posted this in the thread specifically for the tower, but I heard that the people who work at the hotel do not expect to have their jobs by mid-2011.

pesto · #**9672** Posted **Dec 4, 2010, 6:48 PM**

The last I heard on the tower was the Prez of KAL chewing on the city's 🞵🞵🞵 for delaying a project that any city in the country would trade the crown jewels for (and would attract notice all over Asia that the Koreans are bullish on DT LA). Hopefully the process is moving forward on a fast-track.

SD_Phil · #**9673** Posted **Dec 5, 2010, 1:20 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by pesto

The Bringing Back Broadway plan strikes me as pretty much correct on this issue. They were responding to demands for improved parking from every DT stakeholder (this is per BBB and Huizar’s organization, so let him know if you feel differently): rationalize hours and terms for parking structures so as to create externalities (people know what hours the lots are open; that they are properly maintained; costs are reasonable; etc); add parking where there is demand for it (on Bway near the theater district).

Agreed. This seems completely sensible.

In fact I feel the need to clarify (or retract, etc). Private garages are great for encouraging more small scale/street level retail in existing areas all over downtown. Since most of these kinds of businesses would be hard pressed to afford parking (without resorting to strip mall type development) it's great for them to be able to offload parking onto private lots that exist for that purpose (though again here, garages>lots). In that case then yes, to the degree that we require some kinds of retail/commercial properties to require parking then those codes should be eased (though I'm not entirely sure what those requirements are currently).

Residential development would be a bit more difficult unless garages that go up (or already exist) can reasonably rent out long term spaces. In fact it would seem essential to these kinds of developments that they either accommodate all of their parking needs internally (in underground garages on-site) or be able to work out exclusive deals with third parties that guarantee parking (either on a lease or ownership basis).

No matter which of those two you go with it would require building more parking in the neighborhood. Surface lots aren't good for this kind of parking and many of the lots that currently exist are great places to build garages which would dramatically increase capacity (and free up further lots for development). And of course, we need to increase transit options more generally to lessen the need to which parking is required in the first place.

JDRCRASH · #**9674** Posted **Dec 5, 2010, 4:39 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by DistrictDirt

Bummer.

Maybe we can still get the 2020 Summer Olympics. If 30/10 pulls through, most of Measure R's projects will be done.

JDRCRASH · #**9675** Posted **Dec 5, 2010, 5:10 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by RST500

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.

Agreed. We're closing in on a "4.0" thread real fast here, as we have nearly 10,000 posts. I remember posting a story from Curbed LA about a 50 story tower proposed next to the freeway across from USC. It's buried in this thread somewhere.

Also, the Park 101 freeway cap project includes a tower on the Northwest end of the park.

SD_Phil · #**9676** Posted **Dec 5, 2010, 9:12 AM**

^Agreed. Having those again in some concise form would be great for those of us who want to do some serious googling for more info to post up here.

Illithid Dude · #**9677** Posted **Dec 5, 2010, 4:33 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SD_Phil

^Agreed. Having those again in some concise form would be great for those of us who want to do some serious googling for more info to post up here.

I'd do it. I often find that I have waaaay too much free time on my hands.

JDRCRASH · #**9678** Posted **Dec 5, 2010, 11:19 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

I'd do it. I often find that I have waaaay too much free time on my hands.

Same here.

I have so much time that I sometimes wonder if I could start the next Downtown LA thread.

DistrictDirt · #**9679** Posted **Dec 6, 2010, 6:42 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDRCRASH

Agreed. We're closing in on a "4.0" thread real fast here, as we have nearly 10,000 posts.

Is 10,000 typically the cutoff? I'm still relatively new here so I don't know how these things work

Illithid Dude · #**9680** Posted **Dec 6, 2010, 8:26 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by DistrictDirt

Is 10,000 typically the cutoff? I'm still relatively new here so I don't know how these things work

Yes, it is the cut-off.